Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/3] percpu_ida: Fix data race on cpus_have_tags cpumask

[Kent Overstreet]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 01:24:53PM +0100, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> Function steal_tags() might miss a bit in cpus_have_tags due to
> unsynchronized access from percpu_ida_free(). As result, function
> percpu_ida_alloc() might enter unwakable sleep. This update adds
> memory barriers to prevent the described scenario.
> 
> In fact, accesses to cpus_have_tags are fenced by prepare_to_wait()
> and wake_up() calls at the moment and the aforementioned sequence
> does not appear could hit. Nevertheless, explicit memory barriers
> still seem justifiable.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Kent Overstreet <kmo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Acked-by: Kent Overstreet <kmo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  lib/percpu_ida.c |   12 ++++++++++--
>  1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/lib/percpu_ida.c b/lib/percpu_ida.c
> index 7be235f..fccfb28 100644
> --- a/lib/percpu_ida.c
> +++ b/lib/percpu_ida.c
> @@ -68,6 +68,11 @@ static inline void steal_tags(struct percpu_ida *pool,
>  	unsigned cpus_have_tags, cpu = pool->cpu_last_stolen;
>  	struct percpu_ida_cpu *remote;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Pairs with smp_wmb() in percpu_ida_free()
> +	 */
> +	smp_rmb();
> +
>  	for (cpus_have_tags = cpumask_weight(&pool->cpus_have_tags);
>  	     cpus_have_tags * pool->percpu_max_size > pool->nr_tags / 2;
>  	     cpus_have_tags--) {
> @@ -237,8 +242,11 @@ void percpu_ida_free(struct percpu_ida *pool, unsigned tag)
>  	spin_unlock(&tags->lock);
>  
>  	if (nr_free == 1) {
> -		cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(),
> -				&pool->cpus_have_tags);
> +		cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &pool->cpus_have_tags);
> +		/*
> +		 * Pairs with smp_rmb() in steal_tags()
> +		 */
> +		smp_wmb();
>  		wake_up(&pool->wait);

I think I'm nacking this - there's a lot of code in the kernel that relies on
the fact that prepare_to_wait)/wake_up() do the appropriate fences, we really
shouldn't be adding to the barriers those do.

If you can come up with some other reason we need the barriers I'll reconsider.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/