From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@intel.com>,
yangerkun <yangerkun@huawei.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
lkp@lists.01.org, Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [locks] 6d390e4b5d: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -96.6% regression
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2020 18:11:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41c83d34ae4c166f48e7969b2b71e43a0f69028d.camel@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87blp5urwq.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name>
On Tue, 2020-03-10 at 08:42 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09 2020, Jeff Layton wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2020-03-09 at 13:22 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2020-03-09 at 08:52 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 7:36 AM Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 2020-03-08 at 22:03 +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > > > > FYI, we noticed a -96.6% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
> > > > >
> > > > > This is not completely unexpected as we're banging on the global
> > > > > blocked_lock_lock now for every unlock. This test just thrashes file
> > > > > locks and unlocks without doing anything in between, so the workload
> > > > > looks pretty artificial [1].
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be nice to avoid the global lock in this codepath, but it
> > > > > doesn't look simple to do. I'll keep thinking about it, but for now I'm
> > > > > inclined to ignore this result unless we see a problem in more realistic
> > > > > workloads.
> > > >
> > > > That is a _huge_ regression, though.
> > > >
> > > > What about something like the attached? Wouldn't that work? And make
> > > > the code actually match the old comment about wow "fl_blocker" being
> > > > NULL being special.
> > > >
> > > > The old code seemed to not know about things like memory ordering either.
> > > >
> > > > Patch is entirely untested, but aims to have that "smp_store_release()
> > > > means I'm done and not going to touch it any more", making that
> > > > smp_load_acquire() test hopefully be valid as per the comment..
> > >
> > > Yeah, something along those lines maybe. I don't think we can use
> > > fl_blocker that way though, as the wait_event_interruptible is waiting
> > > on it to go to NULL, and the wake_up happens before fl_blocker is
> > > cleared.
> > >
> > > Maybe we need to mix in some sort of FL_BLOCK_ACTIVE flag and use that
> > > instead of testing for !fl_blocker to see whether we can avoid the
> > > blocked_lock_lock?
> > >
> >
> > How about something like this instead? (untested other than for
> > compilation)
> >
> > Basically, this just switches the waiters over to wait for
> > fl_blocked_member to go empty. That still happens before the wakeup, so
> > it should be ok to wait on that.
> >
> > I think we can also eliminate the lockless list_empty check in
> > locks_delete_block, as the fl_blocker check should be sufficient now.
> > --
> > Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
> > From c179d779c9b72838ed9996a65d686d86679d1639 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
> > Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 14:35:43 -0400
> > Subject: [PATCH] locks: reinstate locks_delete_lock optimization
> >
> > ...by using smp_load_acquire and smp_store_release to close the race
> > window.
> >
> > [ jlayton: wait on the fl_blocked_requests list to go empty instead of
> > the fl_blocker pointer to clear. Remove the list_empty check
> > from locks_delete_lock shortcut. ]
>
> Why do you think it is OK to remove that list_empty check? I don't
> think it is. There might be locked requests that need to be woken up.
>
> As the problem here is a use-after-free due to a race, one option would
> be to use rcu_free() on the file_lock, and hold rcu_read_lock() around
> test/use.
>
> Another option is to use a different lock. The fl_wait contains a
> spinlock, and we have wake_up_locked() which is provided for exactly
> these sorts of situations where the wake_up call can race with a thread
> waking up.
>
> So my compile-tested-only proposal is below.
> I can probably a proper change-log entry if you think the patch is a
> good way to go.
>
> NeilBrown
>
>
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index 426b55d333d5..8aa04d5ac8b3 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -735,11 +735,13 @@ static void __locks_wake_up_blocks(struct file_lock *blocker)
>
> waiter = list_first_entry(&blocker->fl_blocked_requests,
> struct file_lock, fl_blocked_member);
> + spin_lock(&waiter->fl_wait.lock);
> __locks_delete_block(waiter);
> if (waiter->fl_lmops && waiter->fl_lmops->lm_notify)
> waiter->fl_lmops->lm_notify(waiter);
> else
> - wake_up(&waiter->fl_wait);
> + wake_up_locked(&waiter->fl_wait);
> + spin_unlock(&waiter->fl_wait.lock);
> }
> }
>
> @@ -753,6 +755,31 @@ int locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter)
> {
> int status = -ENOENT;
>
> + /*
> + * 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. So it is safe to test fl_blocker locklessly.
> + * Also if fl_blocker is NULL, this waiter is not listed on
> + * fl_blocked_requests for some lock, so no other request can
> + * be added to the list of fl_blocked_requests for this
> + * request. So if fl_blocker is NULL, it is safe to
> + * locklessly check if fl_blocked_requests is empty. If both
> + * of these checks succeed, there is no need to take the lock.
> + * However, some other thread might have only *just* set
> + * fl_blocker to NULL and it about to send a wakeup on
> + * fl_wait, so we mustn't return too soon or we might free waiter
> + * before that wakeup can be sent. So take the fl_wait.lock
> + * to serialize with the wakeup in __locks_wake_up_blocks().
> + */
> + if (waiter->fl_blocker == NULL) {
> + spin_lock(&waiter->fl_wait.lock);
> + if (waiter->fl_blocker == NULL &&
> + list_empty(&waiter->fl_blocked_requests)) {
> + spin_unlock(&waiter->fl_wait.lock);
> + return status;
> + }
> + spin_unlock(&waiter->fl_wait.lock);
> + }
> spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock);
> if (waiter->fl_blocker)
> status = 0;
>
Looks good on a cursory check, and I'm inclined to go with this since
it's less fiddly for people to backport.
One other difference to note -- we are holding the fl_wait lock when
calling lm_notify, but I don't think it will matter to any of the
existing lm_notify functions.
If you want to clean up the changelog and resend that would be great.
Thanks,
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-09 22:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-08 14:03 [locks] 6d390e4b5d: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -96.6% regression kernel test robot
2020-03-09 14:36 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-09 15:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-09 17:22 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-09 19:09 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-09 19:53 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-09 21:42 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-09 21:58 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-10 7:52 ` kernel test robot
2020-03-09 22:11 ` Jeff Layton [this message]
2020-03-10 3:24 ` yangerkun
2020-03-10 7:54 ` kernel test robot
2020-03-10 12:52 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-10 14:18 ` yangerkun
2020-03-10 15:06 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-10 17:27 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-10 21:01 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-10 21:14 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-10 21:21 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-10 21:47 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-10 22:07 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-10 22:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-11 22:22 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-12 0:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-12 4:42 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-12 12:31 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-12 22:19 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-14 1:11 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-12 16:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-14 1:31 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-14 2:31 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-14 15:58 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-15 13:54 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-16 5:06 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-16 11:07 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-16 17:26 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-17 1:41 ` yangerkun
2020-03-17 14:05 ` yangerkun
2020-03-17 16:07 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-18 1:09 ` yangerkun
2020-03-19 17:51 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-19 19:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-19 19:24 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-19 19:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-03-19 20:10 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-16 22:45 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-17 15:59 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-17 21:27 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-18 5:12 ` kernel test robot
2020-03-16 4:26 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-11 1:57 ` yangerkun
2020-03-11 12:52 ` Jeff Layton
2020-03-11 13:26 ` yangerkun
2020-03-11 22:15 ` NeilBrown
2020-03-10 7:50 ` kernel test robot
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=41c83d34ae4c166f48e7969b2b71e43a0f69028d.camel@kernel.org \
--to=jlayton@kernel.org \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@lists.01.org \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=rong.a.chen@intel.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=yangerkun@huawei.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).