From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
To: Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Denys Fedoryshchenko <denys@visp.net.lb>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lockdep: annotate epoll
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 14:59:06 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801221458130.15585@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <tkrat.3cc18a24024636f5@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Stefan Richter wrote:
> On 22 Jan, Stefan Richter wrote:
> > On 22 Jan, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> Curious though that this gets reported frequently the last few weeks,
> >> afaics this problem is way old.
> >
> > Here is a report against Fedora's 2.6.23-0.222.rc9.git4.fc8, filed in
> > October: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=323411
>
> Upstream bug: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9786
>
> Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:44:26 +0100
> From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
>
> On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 13:35 -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
>
> > I remember I talked with Arjan about this time ago. Basically, since 1)
> > you can drop an epoll fd inside another epoll fd 2) callback-based wakeups
> > are used, you can see a wake_up() from inside another wake_up(), but they
> > will never refer to the same lock instance.
> > Think about:
> >
> > dfd = socket(...);
> > efd1 = epoll_create();
> > efd2 = epoll_create();
> > epoll_ctl(efd1, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, dfd, ...);
> > epoll_ctl(efd2, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, efd1, ...);
> >
> > When a packet arrives to the device underneath "dfd", the net code will
> > issue a wake_up() on its poll wake list. Epoll (efd1) has installed a
> > callback wakeup entry on that queue, and the wake_up() performed by the
> > "dfd" net code will end up in ep_poll_callback(). At this point epoll
> > (efd1) notices that it may have some event ready, so it needs to wake up
> > the waiters on its poll wait list (efd2). So it calls ep_poll_safewake()
> > that ends up in another wake_up(), after having checked about the
> > recursion constraints. That are, no more than EP_MAX_POLLWAKE_NESTS, to
> > avoid stack blasting. Never hit the same queue, to avoid loops like:
> >
> > epoll_ctl(efd2, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, efd1, ...);
> > epoll_ctl(efd3, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, efd2, ...);
> > epoll_ctl(efd4, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, efd3, ...);
> > epoll_ctl(efd1, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, efd4, ...);
> >
> > The code "if (tncur->wq == wq || ..." prevents re-entering the same
> > queue/lock.
>
> Since the epoll code is very careful to not nest same instance locks
> allow the recursion.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> Tested-by: Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
> ---
> fs/eventpoll.c | 2 +-
> include/linux/wait.h | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Index: linux/fs/eventpoll.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/fs/eventpoll.c
> +++ linux/fs/eventpoll.c
> @@ -353,7 +353,7 @@ static void ep_poll_safewake(struct poll
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&psw->lock, flags);
>
> /* Do really wake up now */
> - wake_up(wq);
> + wake_up_nested(wq, 1 + wake_nests);
>
> /* Remove the current task from the list */
> spin_lock_irqsave(&psw->lock, flags);
> Index: linux/include/linux/wait.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/include/linux/wait.h
> +++ linux/include/linux/wait.h
> @@ -161,6 +161,22 @@ wait_queue_head_t *FASTCALL(bit_waitqueu
> #define wake_up_locked(x) __wake_up_locked((x), TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE | TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)
> #define wake_up_interruptible_sync(x) __wake_up_sync((x),TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, 1)
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> +/*
> + * macro to avoid include hell
> + */
> +#define wake_up_nested(x, s) \
> +do { \
> + unsigned long flags; \
> + \
> + spin_lock_irqsave_nested(&(x)->lock, flags, (s)); \
> + wake_up_locked(x); \
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&(x)->lock, flags); \
> +} while (0)
> +#else
> +#define wake_up_nested(x, s) wake_up(x)
> +#endif
> +
> #define __wait_event(wq, condition) \
> do { \
> DEFINE_WAIT(__wait); \
>
Looks fine to me.
Acked-by: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>
- Davide
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-01-22 22:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-01-21 16:06 2.6.24-rc7 to 2.6.24-rc8 possible regression Denys Fedoryshchenko
2008-01-21 22:45 ` Stefan Richter
2008-01-22 11:10 ` Denys Fedoryshchenko
2008-01-22 16:23 ` Stefan Richter
2008-01-22 16:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-01-22 22:51 ` Stefan Richter
2008-01-22 22:54 ` [PATCH] lockdep: annotate epoll Stefan Richter
2008-01-22 22:59 ` Davide Libenzi [this message]
2008-01-22 22:54 ` 2.6.24-rc7 to 2.6.24-rc8 possible regression Davide Libenzi
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=Pine.LNX.4.64.0801221458130.15585@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com \
--to=davidel@xmailserver.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=denys@visp.net.lb \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de \
/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).