From: Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Yongji Xie <elohimes@gmail.com>
Cc: mingo@redhat.com, will.deacon@arm.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xieyongji@baidu.com,
zhangyu31@baidu.com, liuqi16@baidu.com, yuanlinsi01@baidu.com,
nixun@baidu.com, lilin24@baidu.com,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC] locking/rwsem: Avoid issuing wakeup before setting the reader waiter to nil
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2018 10:21:58 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5598cd71-c3c8-d6ef-eb30-777cf901a2ef@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181129131232.GN2131@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
On 11/29/2018 08:12 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> +Cc davidlohr and waiman
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 08:50:30PM +0800, Yongji Xie wrote:
>> From: Xie Yongji <xieyongji@baidu.com>
>>
>> Our system encountered a problem recently, the khungtaskd detected
>> some process hang on mmap_sem. But the odd thing was that one task which
>> is not on mmap_sem.wait_list still sleeps in rwsem_down_read_failed().
>> Through code inspection, we found a potential bug can lead to this.
>>
>> Imaging this:
>>
>> Thread 1 Thread 2
>> down_write();
>> rwsem_down_read_failed()
>> raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
>> list_add_tail(&waiter.list, &wait_list);
>> raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
>> __up_write();
>> rwsem_wake();
>> __rwsem_mark_wake();
>> wake_q_add();
>> list_del(&waiter->list);
>> waiter->task = NULL;
>> while (true) {
>> set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
>> if (!waiter.task) // true
>> break;
>> }
>> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>>
>> Now Thread 1 is queued in Thread 2's wake_q without sleeping. Then
>> Thread 1 call rwsem_down_read_failed() again because Thread 3
>> hold the lock, if Thread 3 tries to queue Thread 1 before Thread 2
>> do wakeup, it will fail and miss wakeup:
>>
>> Thread 1 Thread 2 Thread 3
>> down_write();
>> rwsem_down_read_failed()
>> raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
>> list_add_tail(&waiter.list, &wait_list);
>> raw_spin_unlock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
>> __rwsem_mark_wake();
>> wake_q_add();
>> wake_up_q();
>> waiter->task = NULL;
>> while (true) {
>> set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
>> if (!waiter.task) // false
>> break;
>> schedule();
>> }
>> wake_up_q(&wake_q);
>>
>> In another word, that means we might issue the wakeup before setting the reader
>> waiter to nil. If so, the wakeup may do nothing when it was called before reader
>> set task state to TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE. Then we would have no chance to wake up
>> the reader any more, and cause other writers such as "ps" command stuck on it.
>>
>> This patch is not verified because we still have no way to reproduce the problem.
>> But I'd like to ask for some comments from community firstly.
> Urgh; so the case where the cmpxchg() fails because it already has a
> wakeup in progress, which then 'violates' our expectation of when the
> wakeup happens.
>
> Yes, I think this is real, and worse, I think we need to go audit all
> wake_q_add() users and document this behaviour.
Yes, I also think this is a valid race scenario that can cause missed
wakeup. Actually, I had bug reports of similar symptom of sleeping
reader not in a wait queue. I was puzzled by how that could happen.
That clearly is one possible cause of that.
> In the ideal case we'd delay the actual wakeup to the last wake_up_q(),
> but I don't think we can easily fix that.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Xie Yongji <xieyongji@baidu.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yu <zhangyu31@baidu.com>
>> ---
>> kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c | 11 +++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
>> index 09b1800..50d9af6 100644
>> --- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
>> +++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
>> @@ -198,15 +198,22 @@ static void __rwsem_mark_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
>> woken++;
>> tsk = waiter->task;
>>
>> - wake_q_add(wake_q, tsk);
>> + get_task_struct(tsk);
>> list_del(&waiter->list);
>> /*
>> - * Ensure that the last operation is setting the reader
>> + * Ensure calling get_task_struct() before setting the reader
>> * waiter to nil such that rwsem_down_read_failed() cannot
>> * race with do_exit() by always holding a reference count
>> * to the task to wakeup.
>> */
>> smp_store_release(&waiter->task, NULL);
>> + /*
>> + * Ensure issuing the wakeup (either by us or someone else)
>> + * after setting the reader waiter to nil.
>> + */
>> + wake_q_add(wake_q, tsk);
>> + /* wake_q_add() already take the task ref */
>> + put_task_struct(tsk);
>> }
>>
>> adjustment = woken * RWSEM_ACTIVE_READ_BIAS - adjustment;
I doubt putting wake_q_add() after clearing waiter->task can really fix
the problem. The wake_up_q() function happens asynchronous to the
detection of NULL waiter->task in __rwsem_down_read_failed_common(). I
believe the same scenario may still happen.
One possible solution that I can think of is as follows:
diff --git a/include/linux/sched/wake_q.h b/include/linux/sched/wake_q.h
index 10b19a1..1513cdc 100644
--- a/include/linux/sched/wake_q.h
+++ b/include/linux/sched/wake_q.h
@@ -47,6 +47,14 @@ static inline void wake_q_init(struct wake_q_head *head)
head->lastp = &head->first;
}
+/*
+ * Return true if the current task is on a wake_q.
+ */
+static inline bool wake_q_pending(void)
+{
+ return !!current->wake_q.next;
+}
+
extern void wake_q_add(struct wake_q_head *head,
struct task_struct *task);
extern void wake_up_q(struct wake_q_head *head);
diff --git a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
index 3dbe593..b656777 100644
--- a/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
+++ b/kernel/locking/rwsem-xadd.c
@@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ static void __rwsem_mark_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
/* wait to be given the lock */
while (true) {
set_current_state(state);
- if (!waiter.task)
+ if (!smp_load_acquire(&waiter.task))
break;
if (signal_pending_state(state, current)) {
raw_spin_lock_irq(&sem->wait_lock);
@@ -282,6 +282,15 @@ static void __rwsem_mark_wake(struct rw_semaphore *sem,
}
__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
+
+ /*
+ * If waiter is still queuing in a wake_q somewhere, we have to wait
+ * until the wake_up_q() process is complete as the memory of the
+ * waiter structure will no longer be valid when we return.
+ */
+ while (wake_q_pending())
+ cpu_relax();
+
return sem;
out_nolock:
list_del(&waiter.list);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-29 15:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-29 12:50 [RFC] locking/rwsem: Avoid issuing wakeup before setting the reader waiter to nil Yongji Xie
2018-11-29 13:12 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-29 13:44 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-29 14:02 ` Yongji Xie
2018-11-29 18:43 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-11-29 18:49 ` Waiman Long
2018-11-29 15:21 ` Waiman Long [this message]
2018-11-29 15:29 ` Waiman Long
2018-11-29 16:06 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-29 17:02 ` Waiman Long
2018-11-29 17:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-29 17:58 ` Waiman Long
2018-11-29 18:13 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-29 18:17 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-11-29 18:08 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-29 18:26 ` Waiman Long
2018-11-29 18:31 ` Will Deacon
2018-11-29 18:34 ` Waiman Long
2018-11-29 22:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-30 9:34 ` 答复: " Liu,Qi(ACU-T1)
2018-11-30 14:15 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-29 21:30 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-11-29 21:34 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-11-29 22:17 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-11-30 9:30 ` Andrea Parri
2018-12-03 5:31 ` [PATCH -tip] kernel/sched,wake_q: Branch predict wake_q_add() cmpxchg Davidlohr Bueso
2018-12-03 16:10 ` Waiman Long
2019-01-21 11:28 ` [tip:locking/core] sched/wake_q: Add branch prediction hint to " tip-bot for Davidlohr Bueso
2018-12-10 15:12 ` [RFC] locking/rwsem: Avoid issuing wakeup before setting the reader waiter to nil Yongji Xie
2018-12-17 11:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-12-17 13:12 ` Yongji Xie
2019-01-07 14:35 ` Waiman Long
2019-01-07 15:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-01-07 15:35 ` Waiman Long
2018-12-17 20:53 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-12-18 13:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-12-18 13:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2018-12-18 17:27 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-12-18 18:54 ` [PATCH v2] sched/wake_q: Reduce reference counting for special users Davidlohr Bueso
2018-12-18 19:17 ` Waiman Long
2018-12-18 19:30 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-12-18 19:39 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2018-12-18 19:53 ` [PATCH v4] " Davidlohr Bueso
2018-12-18 20:35 ` Waiman Long
2019-01-21 16:02 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-01-22 8:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2019-02-04 8:57 ` [tip:locking/core] " tip-bot for Davidlohr Bueso
2019-02-07 19:30 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2019-02-12 14:14 ` Daniel Vacek
2019-01-21 11:28 ` [tip:locking/core] locking/rwsem: Fix (possible) missed wakeup tip-bot for Xie Yongji
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5598cd71-c3c8-d6ef-eb30-777cf901a2ef@redhat.com \
--to=longman@redhat.com \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=elohimes@gmail.com \
--cc=lilin24@baidu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liuqi16@baidu.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=nixun@baidu.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=xieyongji@baidu.com \
--cc=yuanlinsi01@baidu.com \
--cc=zhangyu31@baidu.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).