From: Dan Schatzberg <schatzberg.dan@gmail.com>
To: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] loop: Use worker per cgroup instead of kworker
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 10:43:52 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YG3FKCkcwk7eGdpc@dschatzberg-fedora-PC0Y6AEN.dhcp.thefacebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210407065300.1478-1-hdanton@sina.com>
On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 02:53:00PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 Dan Schatzberg wrote:
> >On Sat, Apr 03, 2021 at 10:09:02AM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2 Apr 2021 12:16:32 Dan Schatzberg wrote:
> >> > +queue_work:
> >> > + if (worker) {
> >> > + /*
> >> > + * We need to remove from the idle list here while
> >> > + * holding the lock so that the idle timer doesn't
> >> > + * free the worker
> >> > + */
> >> > + if (!list_empty(&worker->idle_list))
> >> > + list_del_init(&worker->idle_list);
> >>
> >> Nit, only queue work if the worker is inactive - otherwise it is taking
> >> care of the cmd_list.
> >
> >By worker is inactive, you mean worker is on the idle_list? Yes, I
> >think you're right that queue_work() is unnecessary in that case since
> >each worker checks empty cmd_list then adds itself to idle_list under
> >the lock.
A couple other corner cases - When worker is just allocated, it needs
a queue_work() and rootcg always needs a queue_work() since it never
sits on the idle_list. It does add to the logic a bit rather than just
unconditionally invoking queue_work()
> >
> >>
> >> > + work = &worker->work;
> >> > + cmd_list = &worker->cmd_list;
> >> > + } else {
> >> > + work = &lo->rootcg_work;
> >> > + cmd_list = &lo->rootcg_cmd_list;
> >> > + }
> >> > + list_add_tail(&cmd->list_entry, cmd_list);
> >> > + queue_work(lo->workqueue, work);
> >> > + spin_unlock_irq(&lo->lo_work_lock);
> >> > }
> >> [...]
> >> > + /*
> >> > + * We only add to the idle list if there are no pending cmds
> >> > + * *and* the worker will not run again which ensures that it
> >> > + * is safe to free any worker on the idle list
> >> > + */
> >> > + if (worker && !work_pending(&worker->work)) {
> >>
> >> The empty cmd_list is a good enough reason for worker to become idle.
> >
> >This is only true with the above change to avoid a gratuitous
> >queue_work(), right?
>
> It is always true because of the empty cmd_list - the idle_list is the only
> place for the worker to go at this point.
>
> >Otherwise we run the risk of freeing a worker
> >concurrently with loop_process_work() being invoked.
>
> My suggestion is a minor optimization at most without any change to removing
> worker off the idle_list on queuing work - that cuts the risk for you.
If I just change this line from
if (worker && !work_pending(&worker->work)) {
to
if (worker) {
then the following sequence of events is possible:
1) loop_queue_work runs, adds a command to the worker list
2) loop_process_work runs, processes a single command and then drops
the lock and reschedules
3) loop_queue_work runs again, acquires the lock, adds to the list and
invokes queue_work() again
4) loop_process_work resumes, acquires lock, processes work, notices
list is empty and adds itself to the idle_list
5) idle timer fires and frees the worker
6) loop_process_work runs again (because of the queue_work in 3) and
accesses freed memory
The !work_pending... check prevents 4) from adding itself to the
idle_list so this is not possible. I believe we can only make this
change if we also make the other change you suggested to avoid
gratuitous queue_work()
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-07 14:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-02 19:16 [PATCH V12 0/3] Charge loop device i/o to issuing cgroup Dan Schatzberg
2021-04-02 19:16 ` [PATCH 1/3] loop: Use worker per cgroup instead of kworker Dan Schatzberg
2021-04-06 1:44 ` Ming Lei
2021-04-02 19:16 ` [PATCH 2/3] mm: Charge active memcg when no mm is set Dan Schatzberg
2021-04-03 5:47 ` [External] " Muchun Song
2021-04-02 19:16 ` [PATCH 3/3] loop: Charge i/o to mem and blk cg Dan Schatzberg
2021-04-06 3:23 ` Ming Lei
[not found] ` <20210403020902.1384-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2021-04-06 18:59 ` [PATCH 1/3] loop: Use worker per cgroup instead of kworker Dan Schatzberg
[not found] ` <20210407065300.1478-1-hdanton@sina.com>
2021-04-07 14:43 ` Dan Schatzberg [this message]
2021-04-12 15:45 ` [PATCH V12 0/3] Charge loop device i/o to issuing cgroup Johannes Weiner
2021-04-12 15:50 ` Jens Axboe
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-06-10 17:39 [PATCH V14 " Dan Schatzberg
2021-06-10 17:39 ` [PATCH 1/3] loop: Use worker per cgroup instead of kworker Dan Schatzberg
2021-06-03 14:57 [PATCH V13 0/3] Charge loop device i/o to issuing cgroup Dan Schatzberg
2021-06-03 14:57 ` [PATCH 1/3] loop: Use worker per cgroup instead of kworker Dan Schatzberg
2021-03-29 14:48 [PATCH V11 0/3] Charge loop device i/o to issuing cgroup Dan Schatzberg
2021-03-29 14:48 ` [PATCH 1/3] loop: Use worker per cgroup instead of kworker Dan Schatzberg
2021-03-16 15:36 [PATCH v10 0/3] Charge loop device i/o to issuing cgroup Dan Schatzberg
2021-03-16 15:36 ` [PATCH 1/3] loop: Use worker per cgroup instead of kworker Dan Schatzberg
2020-08-31 15:36 [PATCH v8 0/3] Charge loop device i/o to issuing cgroup Dan Schatzberg
2020-08-31 15:36 ` [PATCH 1/3] loop: Use worker per cgroup instead of kworker Dan Schatzberg
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=YG3FKCkcwk7eGdpc@dschatzberg-fedora-PC0Y6AEN.dhcp.thefacebook.com \
--to=schatzberg.dan@gmail.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hdanton@sina.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/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).