lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH 4.4 034/124] btrfs: add barriers to btrfs_sync_log before log_commit_wait wakeups
Date
4.4-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

[ Upstream commit 3d3a2e610ea5e7c6d4f9481ecce5d8e2d8317843 ]

Currently the code assumes that there's an implied barrier by the
sequence of code preceding the wakeup, namely the mutex unlock.

As Nikolay pointed out:

I think this is wrong (not your code) but the original assumption that
the RELEASE semantics provided by mutex_unlock is sufficient.
According to memory-barriers.txt:

Section 'LOCK ACQUISITION FUNCTIONS' states:

(2) RELEASE operation implication:

Memory operations issued before the RELEASE will be completed before the
RELEASE operation has completed.

Memory operations issued after the RELEASE *may* be completed before the
RELEASE operation has completed.

(I've bolded the may portion)

The example given there:

As an example, consider the following:

*A = a;
*B = b;
ACQUIRE
*C = c;
*D = d;
RELEASE
*E = e;
*F = f;

The following sequence of events is acceptable:

ACQUIRE, {*F,*A}, *E, {*C,*D}, *B, RELEASE

So if we assume that *C is modifying the flag which the waitqueue is checking,
and *E is the actual wakeup, then those accesses can be re-ordered...

IMHO this code should be considered broken...
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---

To be on the safe side, add the barriers. The synchronization logic
around log using the mutexes and several other threads does not make it
easy to reason for/against the barrier.

CC: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/6ee068d8-1a69-3728-00d1-d86293d43c9f@suse.com
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <alexander.levin@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
---
fs/btrfs/tree-log.c | 10 ++++++++--
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

--- a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
@@ -2961,8 +2961,11 @@ out_wake_log_root:
mutex_unlock(&log_root_tree->log_mutex);

/*
- * The barrier before waitqueue_active is implied by mutex_unlock
+ * The barrier before waitqueue_active is needed so all the updates
+ * above are seen by the woken threads. It might not be necessary, but
+ * proving that seems to be hard.
*/
+ smp_mb();
if (waitqueue_active(&log_root_tree->log_commit_wait[index2]))
wake_up(&log_root_tree->log_commit_wait[index2]);
out:
@@ -2973,8 +2976,11 @@ out:
mutex_unlock(&root->log_mutex);

/*
- * The barrier before waitqueue_active is implied by mutex_unlock
+ * The barrier before waitqueue_active is needed so all the updates
+ * above are seen by the woken threads. It might not be necessary, but
+ * proving that seems to be hard.
*/
+ smp_mb();
if (waitqueue_active(&root->log_commit_wait[index1]))
wake_up(&root->log_commit_wait[index1]);
return ret;

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-04 11:17    [W:0.402 / U:0.496 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site