From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77E7EC433DF for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 12:11:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 518F42074D for ; Fri, 29 May 2020 12:11:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727071AbgE2MLR (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2020 08:11:17 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:39242 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726767AbgE2MLR (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 May 2020 08:11:17 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01F14AD94; Fri, 29 May 2020 12:11:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by quack2.suse.cz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 93B3C1E1289; Fri, 29 May 2020 14:11:14 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 29 May 2020 14:11:14 +0200 From: Jan Kara To: Luis Chamberlain Cc: Jan Kara , Bart Van Assche , Jens Axboe , linux-block@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] blktrace: Avoid sparse warnings when assigning q->blk_trace Message-ID: <20200529121114.GR14550@quack2.suse.cz> References: <20200528092910.11118-1-jack@suse.cz> <298af02a-3b58-932a-8769-72dcc52750ad@acm.org> <20200528183152.GH14550@quack2.suse.cz> <20200528184333.GU11244@42.do-not-panic.com> <20200528185539.GJ14550@quack2.suse.cz> <20200529080056.GY11244@42.do-not-panic.com> <20200529090448.GN14550@quack2.suse.cz> <20200529114300.GA11244@42.do-not-panic.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200529114300.GA11244@42.do-not-panic.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Fri 29-05-20 11:43:00, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:04:48AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Fri 29-05-20 08:00:56, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 08:55:39PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > On Thu 28-05-20 18:43:33, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 08:31:52PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > > > On Thu 28-05-20 07:44:38, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > > > > > (+Luis) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2020-05-28 02:29, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > > > > > Mostly for historical reasons, q->blk_trace is assigned through xchg() > > > > > > > > and cmpxchg() atomic operations. Although this is correct, sparse > > > > > > > > complains about this because it violates rcu annotations. Furthermore > > > > > > > > there's no real need for atomic operations anymore since all changes to > > > > > > > > q->blk_trace happen under q->blk_trace_mutex. So let's just replace > > > > > > > > xchg() with rcu_replace_pointer() and cmpxchg() with explicit check and > > > > > > > > rcu_assign_pointer(). This makes the code more efficient and sparse > > > > > > > > happy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: kbuild test robot > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How about adding a reference to commit c780e86dd48e ("blktrace: Protect > > > > > > > q->blk_trace with RCU") in the description of this patch? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, that's probably a good idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @@ -1669,10 +1672,7 @@ static int blk_trace_setup_queue(struct request_queue *q, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > blk_trace_setup_lba(bt, bdev); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ret = -EBUSY; > > > > > > > > - if (cmpxchg(&q->blk_trace, NULL, bt)) > > > > > > > > - goto free_bt; > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > + rcu_assign_pointer(q->blk_trace, bt); > > > > > > > > get_probe_ref(); > > > > > > > > return 0; > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This changes a conditional assignment of q->blk_trace into an > > > > > > > unconditional assignment. Shouldn't q->blk_trace only be assigned if > > > > > > > q->blk_trace == NULL? > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes but both callers of blk_trace_setup_queue() actually check that > > > > > > q->blk_trace is NULL before calling blk_trace_setup_queue() and since we > > > > > > hold blk_trace_mutex all the time, the value of q->blk_trace cannot change. > > > > > > So the conditional assignment was just bogus. > > > > > > > > > > If you run a blktrace against a different partition the check does have > > > > > an effect today. This is because the request_queue is shared between > > > > > partitions implicitly, even though they end up using a different struct > > > > > dentry. So the check is actually still needed, however my change adds > > > > > this check early as well so we don't do a memory allocation just to > > > > > throw it away. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure we are speaking about the same check but I might be missing > > > > something. blk_trace_setup_queue() is only called from > > > > sysfs_blk_trace_attr_store(). That does: > > > > > > > > mutex_lock(&q->blk_trace_mutex); > > > > > > > > bt = rcu_dereference_protected(q->blk_trace, > > > > lockdep_is_held(&q->blk_trace_mutex)); > > > > if (attr == &dev_attr_enable) { > > > > if (!!value == !!bt) { > > > > ret = 0; > > > > goto out_unlock_bdev; > > > > } > > > > > > > > ^^^ So if 'bt' is non-NULL, and we are enabling, we bail > > > > instead of calling blk_trace_setup_queue(). > > > > > > > > Similarly later: > > > > > > > > if (bt == NULL) { > > > > ret = blk_trace_setup_queue(q, bdev); > > > > ... > > > > so we again call blk_trace_setup_queue() only if bt is NULL. So IMO the > > > > cmpxchg() in blk_trace_setup_queue() could never fail to set the value. > > > > Am I missing something? > > > > > > I believe we are talking about the same check indeed. Consider the > > > situation not as a race, but instead consider the state machine of > > > the ioctl. The BLKTRACESETUP goes first, and when that is over we > > > have not ran BLKTRACESTART. So, prior to BLKTRACESTART we can have > > > another BLKTRACESETUP run but against another partition. > > > > So first note that BLKTRACESETUP goes through do_blk_trace_setup() while > > 'echo 1 >/sys/block/../trace/enable' goes through blk_trace_setup_queue(). > > Although these operations achieve a very similar things, they are completely > > separate code paths. I was speaking about the second case while you are now > > speaking about the first one. > > > > WRT to your BLKTRACESETUP example, the first BLKTRACESETUP will end up > > setting q->blk_trace to 'bt' so the second BLKTRACESETUP will see > > q->blk_trace is not NULL (my patch adds this check to do_blk_trace_setup() > > so we bail out earlier than during cmpxchg()) and fails. Again I don't see > > any problem here... > > Ah, the patch I was CC'd on didn't contain this hunk! It only had the > change from cmpxchg() to the rcu_assign_pointer(), so I misunderstood > your intention, sorry! Good that we are on the same page now :) > In that case, I already proposed a patch to do that, and it also adds > a tiny bit of verbiage given we currently don't inform the user about > why this fails [0]. Honestly, I'm not sure pr_warn() you've added is that useful. We usually don't spam logs due to someone trying to use already used resource. But anyway, I can see other people are fine with that so I don't insist. > Let me know how you folks would like to proceed. I guess I can rebase my patch on top of your series since that seems pretty much done. I was aware of it but didn't realize there's a conflict... Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR