Re: [locks] 6d390e4b5d: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -96.6% regression

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>]

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 4:07 AM Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>
> +       /*
> +        * If fl_blocker is NULL, it won't be set again as this thread "owns"
> +        * the lock and is the only one that might try to claim the lock.
> +        * Because fl_blocker is explicitly set last during a delete, it's
> +        * safe to locklessly test to see if it's NULL. If it is, then we know
> +        * that no new locks can be inserted into its fl_blocked_requests list,
> +        * and we can therefore avoid doing anything further as long as that
> +        * list is empty.
> +        */
> +       if (!smp_load_acquire(&waiter->fl_blocker) &&
> +           list_empty(&waiter->fl_blocked_requests))
> +               return status;

Ack. This looks sane to me now.

yangerkun - how did you find the original problem?

Would you mind using whatever stress test that caused commit
6d390e4b5d48 ("locks: fix a potential use-after-free problem when
wakeup a waiter") with this patch? And if you did it analytically,
you're a champ and should look at this patch too!

Thanks,

              Linus