Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1242989 > unrolled thread

[PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier in sunrpc

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier in  sunrpc Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> - 2015-10-09 03:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier in sunrpc Neil Brown <nfbrown@novell.com> - 2015-10-09 08:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier  in sunrpc  Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> - 2015-10-09 08:40 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier  in sunrpc "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> - 2015-10-09 23:20 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier in sunrpc Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com> - 2015-10-09 23:30 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier  in sunrpc  Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> - 2015-10-12 12:50 +0200
            Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier  in sunrpc "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> - 2015-10-12 22:30 +0200
              Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier  in sunrpc  Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> - 2015-10-14 06:00 +0200
                Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier  in sunrpc "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> - 2015-10-14 18:10 +0200
                  Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier  in sunrpc  Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> - 2015-10-15 02:10 +0200
                    Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier  in sunrpc  Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> - 2015-10-15 13:50 +0200
                      Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier  in sunrpc "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> - 2015-10-15 23:00 +0200
                        Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier in sunrpc Neil Brown <nfbrown@novell.com> - 2015-10-16 02:50 +0200
                        Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier  in sunrpc  Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> - 2015-10-16 03:50 +0200
                          Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier  in sunrpc  Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> - 2015-10-16 04:30 +0200

#1242989 — [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier in sunrpc

There are several places in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c which calls
waitqueue_active() without calling a memory barrier.  Add a memory
barrier just as in wq_has_sleeper().

I found this issue when I was looking through the linux source code
for places calling waitqueue_active() before wake_up*(), but without
preceding memory barriers, after sending a patch to fix a similar
issue in drivers/tty/n_tty.c  (Details about the original issue can be
found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849).

Signed-off-by: Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com>
---
v2:
  - Fixed compiler warnings caused by type mismatch
v1:
  - https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/8/993
---
 net/sunrpc/svcsock.c |    6 ++++++
 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
index 0c81202..ec19444 100644
--- a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
@@ -414,6 +414,7 @@ static void svc_udp_data_ready(struct sock *sk)
 		set_bit(XPT_DATA, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
 		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
 	}
+	smp_mb();
 	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
 		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
 }
@@ -432,6 +433,7 @@ static void svc_write_space(struct sock *sk)
 		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
 	}
 
+	smp_mb();
 	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq)) {
 		dprintk("RPC svc_write_space: someone sleeping on %p\n",
 		       svsk);
@@ -787,6 +789,7 @@ static void svc_tcp_listen_data_ready(struct sock *sk)
 	}
 
 	wq = sk_sleep(sk);
+	smp_mb();
 	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
 		wake_up_interruptible_all(wq);
 }
@@ -808,6 +811,7 @@ static void svc_tcp_state_change(struct sock *sk)
 		set_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
 		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
 	}
+	smp_mb();
 	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
 		wake_up_interruptible_all(wq);
 }
@@ -823,6 +827,7 @@ static void svc_tcp_data_ready(struct sock *sk)
 		set_bit(XPT_DATA, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
 		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
 	}
+	smp_mb();
 	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
 		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
 }
@@ -1594,6 +1599,7 @@ static void svc_sock_detach(struct svc_xprt *xprt)
 	sk->sk_write_space = svsk->sk_owspace;
 
 	wq = sk_sleep(sk);
+	smp_mb();
 	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
 		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
 }
-- 
1.7.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1243044 — Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier in sunrpc

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> writes:

> There are several places in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c which calls
> waitqueue_active() without calling a memory barrier.  Add a memory
> barrier just as in wq_has_sleeper().
>
> I found this issue when I was looking through the linux source code
> for places calling waitqueue_active() before wake_up*(), but without
> preceding memory barriers, after sending a patch to fix a similar
> issue in drivers/tty/n_tty.c  (Details about the original issue can be
> found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849).

hi,
this feels like the wrong approach to the problem.  It requires extra
'smb_mb's to be spread around which are hard to understand as easy to
forget.

A quick look seems to suggest that (nearly) every waitqueue_active()
will need an smb_mb.  Could we just put the smb_mb() inside
waitqueue_active()??

Thanks,
NeilBrown


>
> Signed-off-by: Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com>
> ---
> v2:
>   - Fixed compiler warnings caused by type mismatch
> v1:
>   - https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/8/993
> ---
>  net/sunrpc/svcsock.c |    6 ++++++
>  1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> index 0c81202..ec19444 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> @@ -414,6 +414,7 @@ static void svc_udp_data_ready(struct sock *sk)
>  		set_bit(XPT_DATA, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
>  		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
>  	}
> +	smp_mb();
>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
>  		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
>  }

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1243055 — Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier in sunrpc

Neil Brown wrote:
> Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> writes:
> 
>> There are several places in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c which calls
>> waitqueue_active() without calling a memory barrier.  Add a memory
>> barrier just as in wq_has_sleeper().
>>
>> I found this issue when I was looking through the linux source code
>> for places calling waitqueue_active() before wake_up*(), but without
>> preceding memory barriers, after sending a patch to fix a similar
>> issue in drivers/tty/n_tty.c  (Details about the original issue can be
>> found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849).
> 
> hi,
> this feels like the wrong approach to the problem.  It requires extra
> 'smb_mb's to be spread around which are hard to understand as easy to
> forget.
> 
> A quick look seems to suggest that (nearly) every waitqueue_active()
> will need an smb_mb.  Could we just put the smb_mb() inside
> waitqueue_active()??
<snip>

There are around 200 occurrences of waitqueue_active() in the kernel
source, and most of the places which use it before wake_up are either
protected by some spin lock, or already has a memory barrier or some
kind of atomic operation before it.

Simply adding smp_mb() to waitqueue_active() would incur extra cost in
many cases and won't be a good idea.

Another way to solve this problem is to remove the waitqueue_active(),
making the code look like this;
	if (wq)
		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
This also fixes the problem because the spinlock in the wake_up*() acts
as a memory barrier and prevents the code from being reordered by the
CPU (and it also makes the resulting code is much simpler).
---
Kosuke TATSUKAWA  | 3rd IT Platform Department
                  | IT Platform Division, NEC Corporation
                  | tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1243664 — Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier in sunrpc

On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 06:29:44AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
> Neil Brown wrote:
> > Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> writes:
> > 
> >> There are several places in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c which calls
> >> waitqueue_active() without calling a memory barrier.  Add a memory
> >> barrier just as in wq_has_sleeper().
> >>
> >> I found this issue when I was looking through the linux source code
> >> for places calling waitqueue_active() before wake_up*(), but without
> >> preceding memory barriers, after sending a patch to fix a similar
> >> issue in drivers/tty/n_tty.c  (Details about the original issue can be
> >> found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849).
> > 
> > hi,
> > this feels like the wrong approach to the problem.  It requires extra
> > 'smb_mb's to be spread around which are hard to understand as easy to
> > forget.
> > 
> > A quick look seems to suggest that (nearly) every waitqueue_active()
> > will need an smb_mb.  Could we just put the smb_mb() inside
> > waitqueue_active()??
> <snip>
> 
> There are around 200 occurrences of waitqueue_active() in the kernel
> source, and most of the places which use it before wake_up are either
> protected by some spin lock, or already has a memory barrier or some
> kind of atomic operation before it.
> 
> Simply adding smp_mb() to waitqueue_active() would incur extra cost in
> many cases and won't be a good idea.
> 
> Another way to solve this problem is to remove the waitqueue_active(),
> making the code look like this;
> 	if (wq)
> 		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
> This also fixes the problem because the spinlock in the wake_up*() acts
> as a memory barrier and prevents the code from being reordered by the
> CPU (and it also makes the resulting code is much simpler).

I might not care which we did, except I don't have the means to test
this quickly, and I guess this is some of our most frequently called
code.

I suppose your patch is the most conservative approach, as the
alternative is a spinlock/unlock in wake_up_interruptible, which I
assume is necessarily more expensive than an smp_mb().

As far as I can tell it's been this way since forever.  (Well, since a
2002 patch "NFSD: TCP: rationalise locking in RPC server routines" which
removed some spinlocks from the data_ready routines.)

I don't understand what the actual race is yet (which code exactly is
missing the wakeup in this case?  nfsd threads seem to instead get
woken up by the wake_up_process() in svc_xprt_do_enqueue().)

--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1243670 — Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier in sunrpc

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:18 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 06:29:44AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
> > Neil Brown wrote:
> > > Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> writes:
> > >
> > >> There are several places in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c which calls
> > >> waitqueue_active() without calling a memory barrier.  Add a memory
> > >> barrier just as in wq_has_sleeper().
> > >>
> > >> I found this issue when I was looking through the linux source code
> > >> for places calling waitqueue_active() before wake_up*(), but without
> > >> preceding memory barriers, after sending a patch to fix a similar
> > >> issue in drivers/tty/n_tty.c  (Details about the original issue can be
> > >> found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849).
> > >
> > > hi,
> > > this feels like the wrong approach to the problem.  It requires extra
> > > 'smb_mb's to be spread around which are hard to understand as easy to
> > > forget.
> > >
> > > A quick look seems to suggest that (nearly) every waitqueue_active()
> > > will need an smb_mb.  Could we just put the smb_mb() inside
> > > waitqueue_active()??
> > <snip>
> >
> > There are around 200 occurrences of waitqueue_active() in the kernel
> > source, and most of the places which use it before wake_up are either
> > protected by some spin lock, or already has a memory barrier or some
> > kind of atomic operation before it.
> >
> > Simply adding smp_mb() to waitqueue_active() would incur extra cost in
> > many cases and won't be a good idea.
> >
> > Another way to solve this problem is to remove the waitqueue_active(),
> > making the code look like this;
> >       if (wq)
> >               wake_up_interruptible(wq);
> > This also fixes the problem because the spinlock in the wake_up*() acts
> > as a memory barrier and prevents the code from being reordered by the
> > CPU (and it also makes the resulting code is much simpler).
>
> I might not care which we did, except I don't have the means to test
> this quickly, and I guess this is some of our most frequently called
> code.
>
> I suppose your patch is the most conservative approach, as the
> alternative is a spinlock/unlock in wake_up_interruptible, which I
> assume is necessarily more expensive than an smp_mb().
>
> As far as I can tell it's been this way since forever.  (Well, since a
> 2002 patch "NFSD: TCP: rationalise locking in RPC server routines" which
> removed some spinlocks from the data_ready routines.)
>
> I don't understand what the actual race is yet (which code exactly is
> missing the wakeup in this case?  nfsd threads seem to instead get
> woken up by the wake_up_process() in svc_xprt_do_enqueue().)
>

Those threads still use blocking calls for sendpage() and sendmsg(),
so presumably they may be affected.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1244583 — Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier in sunrpc

J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 06:29:44AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>> Neil Brown wrote:
>> > Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> writes:
>> > 
>> >> There are several places in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c which calls
>> >> waitqueue_active() without calling a memory barrier.  Add a memory
>> >> barrier just as in wq_has_sleeper().
>> >>
>> >> I found this issue when I was looking through the linux source code
>> >> for places calling waitqueue_active() before wake_up*(), but without
>> >> preceding memory barriers, after sending a patch to fix a similar
>> >> issue in drivers/tty/n_tty.c  (Details about the original issue can be
>> >> found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849).
>> > 
>> > hi,
>> > this feels like the wrong approach to the problem.  It requires extra
>> > 'smb_mb's to be spread around which are hard to understand as easy to
>> > forget.
>> > 
>> > A quick look seems to suggest that (nearly) every waitqueue_active()
>> > will need an smb_mb.  Could we just put the smb_mb() inside
>> > waitqueue_active()??
>> <snip>
>> 
>> There are around 200 occurrences of waitqueue_active() in the kernel
>> source, and most of the places which use it before wake_up are either
>> protected by some spin lock, or already has a memory barrier or some
>> kind of atomic operation before it.
>> 
>> Simply adding smp_mb() to waitqueue_active() would incur extra cost in
>> many cases and won't be a good idea.
>> 
>> Another way to solve this problem is to remove the waitqueue_active(),
>> making the code look like this;
>> 	if (wq)
>> 		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
>> This also fixes the problem because the spinlock in the wake_up*() acts
>> as a memory barrier and prevents the code from being reordered by the
>> CPU (and it also makes the resulting code is much simpler).
> 
> I might not care which we did, except I don't have the means to test
> this quickly, and I guess this is some of our most frequently called
> code.
> 
> I suppose your patch is the most conservative approach, as the
> alternative is a spinlock/unlock in wake_up_interruptible, which I
> assume is necessarily more expensive than an smp_mb().
> 
> As far as I can tell it's been this way since forever.  (Well, since a
> 2002 patch "NFSD: TCP: rationalise locking in RPC server routines" which
> removed some spinlocks from the data_ready routines.)
> 
> I don't understand what the actual race is yet (which code exactly is
> missing the wakeup in this case?  nfsd threads seem to instead get
> woken up by the wake_up_process() in svc_xprt_do_enqueue().)

Thank you for the reply.  I tried looking into this.

The callbacks in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c are set up in svc_tcp_init() and
svc_udp_init(), which are both called from svc_setup_socket().
svc_setup_socket() is called (indirectly) from lockd, nfsd, and nfsv4
callback port related code.

Maybe I'm wrong, but there might not be any kernel code that is using
the socket's wait queue in this case.

Best regards.
---
Kosuke TATSUKAWA  | 3rd IT Platform Department
                  | IT Platform Division, NEC Corporation
                  | tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1245105 — Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier in sunrpc

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:41:06AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 06:29:44AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
> >> Neil Brown wrote:
> >> > Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> writes:
> >> > 
> >> >> There are several places in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c which calls
> >> >> waitqueue_active() without calling a memory barrier.  Add a memory
> >> >> barrier just as in wq_has_sleeper().
> >> >>
> >> >> I found this issue when I was looking through the linux source code
> >> >> for places calling waitqueue_active() before wake_up*(), but without
> >> >> preceding memory barriers, after sending a patch to fix a similar
> >> >> issue in drivers/tty/n_tty.c  (Details about the original issue can be
> >> >> found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849).
> >> > 
> >> > hi,
> >> > this feels like the wrong approach to the problem.  It requires extra
> >> > 'smb_mb's to be spread around which are hard to understand as easy to
> >> > forget.
> >> > 
> >> > A quick look seems to suggest that (nearly) every waitqueue_active()
> >> > will need an smb_mb.  Could we just put the smb_mb() inside
> >> > waitqueue_active()??
> >> <snip>
> >> 
> >> There are around 200 occurrences of waitqueue_active() in the kernel
> >> source, and most of the places which use it before wake_up are either
> >> protected by some spin lock, or already has a memory barrier or some
> >> kind of atomic operation before it.
> >> 
> >> Simply adding smp_mb() to waitqueue_active() would incur extra cost in
> >> many cases and won't be a good idea.
> >> 
> >> Another way to solve this problem is to remove the waitqueue_active(),
> >> making the code look like this;
> >> 	if (wq)
> >> 		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
> >> This also fixes the problem because the spinlock in the wake_up*() acts
> >> as a memory barrier and prevents the code from being reordered by the
> >> CPU (and it also makes the resulting code is much simpler).
> > 
> > I might not care which we did, except I don't have the means to test
> > this quickly, and I guess this is some of our most frequently called
> > code.
> > 
> > I suppose your patch is the most conservative approach, as the
> > alternative is a spinlock/unlock in wake_up_interruptible, which I
> > assume is necessarily more expensive than an smp_mb().
> > 
> > As far as I can tell it's been this way since forever.  (Well, since a
> > 2002 patch "NFSD: TCP: rationalise locking in RPC server routines" which
> > removed some spinlocks from the data_ready routines.)
> > 
> > I don't understand what the actual race is yet (which code exactly is
> > missing the wakeup in this case?  nfsd threads seem to instead get
> > woken up by the wake_up_process() in svc_xprt_do_enqueue().)
> 
> Thank you for the reply.  I tried looking into this.
> 
> The callbacks in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c are set up in svc_tcp_init() and
> svc_udp_init(), which are both called from svc_setup_socket().
> svc_setup_socket() is called (indirectly) from lockd, nfsd, and nfsv4
> callback port related code.
> 
> Maybe I'm wrong, but there might not be any kernel code that is using
> the socket's wait queue in this case.

As Trond points out there are probably waiters internal to the
networking code.

--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1246292 — Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier in sunrpc

J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:41:06AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 06:29:44AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>> >> Neil Brown wrote:
>> >> > Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> writes:
>> >> > 
>> >> >> There are several places in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c which calls
>> >> >> waitqueue_active() without calling a memory barrier.  Add a memory
>> >> >> barrier just as in wq_has_sleeper().
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I found this issue when I was looking through the linux source code
>> >> >> for places calling waitqueue_active() before wake_up*(), but without
>> >> >> preceding memory barriers, after sending a patch to fix a similar
>> >> >> issue in drivers/tty/n_tty.c  (Details about the original issue can be
>> >> >> found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849).
>> >> > 
>> >> > hi,
>> >> > this feels like the wrong approach to the problem.  It requires extra
>> >> > 'smb_mb's to be spread around which are hard to understand as easy to
>> >> > forget.
>> >> > 
>> >> > A quick look seems to suggest that (nearly) every waitqueue_active()
>> >> > will need an smb_mb.  Could we just put the smb_mb() inside
>> >> > waitqueue_active()??
>> >> <snip>
>> >> 
>> >> There are around 200 occurrences of waitqueue_active() in the kernel
>> >> source, and most of the places which use it before wake_up are either
>> >> protected by some spin lock, or already has a memory barrier or some
>> >> kind of atomic operation before it.
>> >> 
>> >> Simply adding smp_mb() to waitqueue_active() would incur extra cost in
>> >> many cases and won't be a good idea.
>> >> 
>> >> Another way to solve this problem is to remove the waitqueue_active(),
>> >> making the code look like this;
>> >> 	if (wq)
>> >> 		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
>> >> This also fixes the problem because the spinlock in the wake_up*() acts
>> >> as a memory barrier and prevents the code from being reordered by the
>> >> CPU (and it also makes the resulting code is much simpler).
>> > 
>> > I might not care which we did, except I don't have the means to test
>> > this quickly, and I guess this is some of our most frequently called
>> > code.
>> > 
>> > I suppose your patch is the most conservative approach, as the
>> > alternative is a spinlock/unlock in wake_up_interruptible, which I
>> > assume is necessarily more expensive than an smp_mb().
>> > 
>> > As far as I can tell it's been this way since forever.  (Well, since a
>> > 2002 patch "NFSD: TCP: rationalise locking in RPC server routines" which
>> > removed some spinlocks from the data_ready routines.)
>> > 
>> > I don't understand what the actual race is yet (which code exactly is
>> > missing the wakeup in this case?  nfsd threads seem to instead get
>> > woken up by the wake_up_process() in svc_xprt_do_enqueue().)
>> 
>> Thank you for the reply.  I tried looking into this.
>> 
>> The callbacks in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c are set up in svc_tcp_init() and
>> svc_udp_init(), which are both called from svc_setup_socket().
>> svc_setup_socket() is called (indirectly) from lockd, nfsd, and nfsv4
>> callback port related code.
>> 
>> Maybe I'm wrong, but there might not be any kernel code that is using
>> the socket's wait queue in this case.
> 
> As Trond points out there are probably waiters internal to the
> networking code.

Trond and Bruce, thank you for the comment.  I was able to find the call
to the wait function that was called from nfsd.

sk_stream_wait_connect() and sk_stream_wait_memory() were called from
either do_tcp_sendpages() or tcp_sendmsg() called from within
svc_send().  sk_stream_wait_connect() shouldn't be called at this point,
because the socket has already been used to receive the rpc request.

On the wake_up side, sk_write_space() is called from the following
locations.  The relevant ones seems to be preceded by atomic_sub or a
memory barrier.
+ ksocknal_write_space [drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/klnds/socklnd/socklnd_lib.c:633]
+ atm_pop_raw [net/atm/raw.c:40]
+ sock_setsockopt [net/core/sock.c:740]
+ sock_wfree [net/core/sock.c:1630]
  Preceded by atomic_sub in sock_wfree()
+ ccid3_hc_tx_packet_recv [net/dccp/ccids/ccid3.c:442]
+ do_tcp_sendpages [net/ipv4/tcp.c:1008]
+ tcp_sendmsg [net/ipv4/tcp.c:1300]
+ do_tcp_setsockopt [net/ipv4/tcp.c:2597]
+ tcp_new_space [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:4885]
  Preceded by smp_mb__after_atomic in tcp_check_space()
+ llc_conn_state_process [net/llc/llc_conn.c:148]
+ pipe_rcv_status [net/phonet/pep.c:312]
+ pipe_do_rcv [net/phonet/pep.c:440]
+ pipe_start_flow_control [net/phonet/pep.c:554]
+ svc_sock_setbufsize [net/sunrpc/svcsock.c:45]

sk_state_change() calls related to TCP/IP were called from the following
places.
+ inet_shutdown [net/ipv4/af_inet.c:825]
  This shouldn't be called when waiting
+ tcp_done [net/ipv4/tcp.c:3078]
  spin_lock*/spin_unlock* is called in lock_timer_base
+ tcp_fin [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:4031]
  atomic_long_sub is called from sk_memory_allocated_sub called within
  sk_mem_reclaim
+ tcp_finish_connect [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:5415]
  This shoudn't be called when waiting
+ tcp_rcv_state_process [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:5807,5880]
  The socket shouldn't be in TCP_SYN_RECV nor TCP_FIN_WAIT1 states when
  waiting

I think the wait queue won't be used for being woken up by
svc_{tcp,udp}_data_ready, because nfsd doesn't read from a socket.

So with the current implementation, it seems there shouldn't be any
problems even if the memory barrier is missing.
---
Kosuke TATSUKAWA  | 3rd IT Platform Department
                  | IT Platform Division, NEC Corporation
                  | tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1246955 — Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier in sunrpc

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 03:57:13AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:41:06AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
> >> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 06:29:44AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
> >> >> Neil Brown wrote:
> >> >> > Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> writes:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> >> There are several places in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c which calls
> >> >> >> waitqueue_active() without calling a memory barrier.  Add a memory
> >> >> >> barrier just as in wq_has_sleeper().
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I found this issue when I was looking through the linux source code
> >> >> >> for places calling waitqueue_active() before wake_up*(), but without
> >> >> >> preceding memory barriers, after sending a patch to fix a similar
> >> >> >> issue in drivers/tty/n_tty.c  (Details about the original issue can be
> >> >> >> found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849).
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > hi,
> >> >> > this feels like the wrong approach to the problem.  It requires extra
> >> >> > 'smb_mb's to be spread around which are hard to understand as easy to
> >> >> > forget.
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > A quick look seems to suggest that (nearly) every waitqueue_active()
> >> >> > will need an smb_mb.  Could we just put the smb_mb() inside
> >> >> > waitqueue_active()??
> >> >> <snip>
> >> >> 
> >> >> There are around 200 occurrences of waitqueue_active() in the kernel
> >> >> source, and most of the places which use it before wake_up are either
> >> >> protected by some spin lock, or already has a memory barrier or some
> >> >> kind of atomic operation before it.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Simply adding smp_mb() to waitqueue_active() would incur extra cost in
> >> >> many cases and won't be a good idea.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Another way to solve this problem is to remove the waitqueue_active(),
> >> >> making the code look like this;
> >> >> 	if (wq)
> >> >> 		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
> >> >> This also fixes the problem because the spinlock in the wake_up*() acts
> >> >> as a memory barrier and prevents the code from being reordered by the
> >> >> CPU (and it also makes the resulting code is much simpler).
> >> > 
> >> > I might not care which we did, except I don't have the means to test
> >> > this quickly, and I guess this is some of our most frequently called
> >> > code.
> >> > 
> >> > I suppose your patch is the most conservative approach, as the
> >> > alternative is a spinlock/unlock in wake_up_interruptible, which I
> >> > assume is necessarily more expensive than an smp_mb().
> >> > 
> >> > As far as I can tell it's been this way since forever.  (Well, since a
> >> > 2002 patch "NFSD: TCP: rationalise locking in RPC server routines" which
> >> > removed some spinlocks from the data_ready routines.)
> >> > 
> >> > I don't understand what the actual race is yet (which code exactly is
> >> > missing the wakeup in this case?  nfsd threads seem to instead get
> >> > woken up by the wake_up_process() in svc_xprt_do_enqueue().)
> >> 
> >> Thank you for the reply.  I tried looking into this.
> >> 
> >> The callbacks in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c are set up in svc_tcp_init() and
> >> svc_udp_init(), which are both called from svc_setup_socket().
> >> svc_setup_socket() is called (indirectly) from lockd, nfsd, and nfsv4
> >> callback port related code.
> >> 
> >> Maybe I'm wrong, but there might not be any kernel code that is using
> >> the socket's wait queue in this case.
> > 
> > As Trond points out there are probably waiters internal to the
> > networking code.
> 
> Trond and Bruce, thank you for the comment.  I was able to find the call
> to the wait function that was called from nfsd.
> 
> sk_stream_wait_connect() and sk_stream_wait_memory() were called from
> either do_tcp_sendpages() or tcp_sendmsg() called from within
> svc_send().  sk_stream_wait_connect() shouldn't be called at this point,
> because the socket has already been used to receive the rpc request.
> 
> On the wake_up side, sk_write_space() is called from the following
> locations.  The relevant ones seems to be preceded by atomic_sub or a
> memory barrier.
> + ksocknal_write_space [drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/klnds/socklnd/socklnd_lib.c:633]
> + atm_pop_raw [net/atm/raw.c:40]
> + sock_setsockopt [net/core/sock.c:740]
> + sock_wfree [net/core/sock.c:1630]
>   Preceded by atomic_sub in sock_wfree()
> + ccid3_hc_tx_packet_recv [net/dccp/ccids/ccid3.c:442]
> + do_tcp_sendpages [net/ipv4/tcp.c:1008]
> + tcp_sendmsg [net/ipv4/tcp.c:1300]
> + do_tcp_setsockopt [net/ipv4/tcp.c:2597]
> + tcp_new_space [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:4885]
>   Preceded by smp_mb__after_atomic in tcp_check_space()
> + llc_conn_state_process [net/llc/llc_conn.c:148]
> + pipe_rcv_status [net/phonet/pep.c:312]
> + pipe_do_rcv [net/phonet/pep.c:440]
> + pipe_start_flow_control [net/phonet/pep.c:554]
> + svc_sock_setbufsize [net/sunrpc/svcsock.c:45]
> 
> sk_state_change() calls related to TCP/IP were called from the following
> places.
> + inet_shutdown [net/ipv4/af_inet.c:825]
>   This shouldn't be called when waiting
> + tcp_done [net/ipv4/tcp.c:3078]
>   spin_lock*/spin_unlock* is called in lock_timer_base
> + tcp_fin [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:4031]
>   atomic_long_sub is called from sk_memory_allocated_sub called within
>   sk_mem_reclaim
> + tcp_finish_connect [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:5415]
>   This shoudn't be called when waiting
> + tcp_rcv_state_process [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:5807,5880]
>   The socket shouldn't be in TCP_SYN_RECV nor TCP_FIN_WAIT1 states when
>   waiting
> 
> I think the wait queue won't be used for being woken up by
> svc_{tcp,udp}_data_ready, because nfsd doesn't read from a socket.

Looking, well, I guess kernel_recvmsg() does read from a socket, but I
assume calling with MSG_DONTWAIT means that it doesn't block.

> So with the current implementation, it seems there shouldn't be any
> problems even if the memory barrier is missing.

Thanks for the detailed investigation.

I think it would be worth adding a comment if that might help someone
having to reinvestigate this again some day.

--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1247267 — Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier in sunrpc

J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 03:57:13AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:41:06AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>> >> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> >> > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 06:29:44AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>> >> >> Neil Brown wrote:
>> >> >> > Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> writes:
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> >> There are several places in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c which calls
>> >> >> >> waitqueue_active() without calling a memory barrier.  Add a memory
>> >> >> >> barrier just as in wq_has_sleeper().
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I found this issue when I was looking through the linux source code
>> >> >> >> for places calling waitqueue_active() before wake_up*(), but without
>> >> >> >> preceding memory barriers, after sending a patch to fix a similar
>> >> >> >> issue in drivers/tty/n_tty.c  (Details about the original issue can be
>> >> >> >> found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849).
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > hi,
>> >> >> > this feels like the wrong approach to the problem.  It requires extra
>> >> >> > 'smb_mb's to be spread around which are hard to understand as easy to
>> >> >> > forget.
>> >> >> > 
>> >> >> > A quick look seems to suggest that (nearly) every waitqueue_active()
>> >> >> > will need an smb_mb.  Could we just put the smb_mb() inside
>> >> >> > waitqueue_active()??
>> >> >> <snip>
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> There are around 200 occurrences of waitqueue_active() in the kernel
>> >> >> source, and most of the places which use it before wake_up are either
>> >> >> protected by some spin lock, or already has a memory barrier or some
>> >> >> kind of atomic operation before it.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Simply adding smp_mb() to waitqueue_active() would incur extra cost in
>> >> >> many cases and won't be a good idea.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> Another way to solve this problem is to remove the waitqueue_active(),
>> >> >> making the code look like this;
>> >> >> 	if (wq)
>> >> >> 		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
>> >> >> This also fixes the problem because the spinlock in the wake_up*() acts
>> >> >> as a memory barrier and prevents the code from being reordered by the
>> >> >> CPU (and it also makes the resulting code is much simpler).
>> >> > 
>> >> > I might not care which we did, except I don't have the means to test
>> >> > this quickly, and I guess this is some of our most frequently called
>> >> > code.
>> >> > 
>> >> > I suppose your patch is the most conservative approach, as the
>> >> > alternative is a spinlock/unlock in wake_up_interruptible, which I
>> >> > assume is necessarily more expensive than an smp_mb().
>> >> > 
>> >> > As far as I can tell it's been this way since forever.  (Well, since a
>> >> > 2002 patch "NFSD: TCP: rationalise locking in RPC server routines" which
>> >> > removed some spinlocks from the data_ready routines.)
>> >> > 
>> >> > I don't understand what the actual race is yet (which code exactly is
>> >> > missing the wakeup in this case?  nfsd threads seem to instead get
>> >> > woken up by the wake_up_process() in svc_xprt_do_enqueue().)
>> >> 
>> >> Thank you for the reply.  I tried looking into this.
>> >> 
>> >> The callbacks in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c are set up in svc_tcp_init() and
>> >> svc_udp_init(), which are both called from svc_setup_socket().
>> >> svc_setup_socket() is called (indirectly) from lockd, nfsd, and nfsv4
>> >> callback port related code.
>> >> 
>> >> Maybe I'm wrong, but there might not be any kernel code that is using
>> >> the socket's wait queue in this case.
>> > 
>> > As Trond points out there are probably waiters internal to the
>> > networking code.
>> 
>> Trond and Bruce, thank you for the comment.  I was able to find the call
>> to the wait function that was called from nfsd.
>> 
>> sk_stream_wait_connect() and sk_stream_wait_memory() were called from
>> either do_tcp_sendpages() or tcp_sendmsg() called from within
>> svc_send().  sk_stream_wait_connect() shouldn't be called at this point,
>> because the socket has already been used to receive the rpc request.
>> 
>> On the wake_up side, sk_write_space() is called from the following
>> locations.  The relevant ones seems to be preceded by atomic_sub or a
>> memory barrier.
>> + ksocknal_write_space [drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/klnds/socklnd/socklnd_lib.c:633]
>> + atm_pop_raw [net/atm/raw.c:40]
>> + sock_setsockopt [net/core/sock.c:740]
>> + sock_wfree [net/core/sock.c:1630]
>>   Preceded by atomic_sub in sock_wfree()
>> + ccid3_hc_tx_packet_recv [net/dccp/ccids/ccid3.c:442]
>> + do_tcp_sendpages [net/ipv4/tcp.c:1008]
>> + tcp_sendmsg [net/ipv4/tcp.c:1300]
>> + do_tcp_setsockopt [net/ipv4/tcp.c:2597]
>> + tcp_new_space [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:4885]
>>   Preceded by smp_mb__after_atomic in tcp_check_space()
>> + llc_conn_state_process [net/llc/llc_conn.c:148]
>> + pipe_rcv_status [net/phonet/pep.c:312]
>> + pipe_do_rcv [net/phonet/pep.c:440]
>> + pipe_start_flow_control [net/phonet/pep.c:554]
>> + svc_sock_setbufsize [net/sunrpc/svcsock.c:45]
>> 
>> sk_state_change() calls related to TCP/IP were called from the following
>> places.
>> + inet_shutdown [net/ipv4/af_inet.c:825]
>>   This shouldn't be called when waiting
>> + tcp_done [net/ipv4/tcp.c:3078]
>>   spin_lock*/spin_unlock* is called in lock_timer_base
>> + tcp_fin [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:4031]
>>   atomic_long_sub is called from sk_memory_allocated_sub called within
>>   sk_mem_reclaim
>> + tcp_finish_connect [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:5415]
>>   This shoudn't be called when waiting
>> + tcp_rcv_state_process [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:5807,5880]
>>   The socket shouldn't be in TCP_SYN_RECV nor TCP_FIN_WAIT1 states when
>>   waiting
>> 
>> I think the wait queue won't be used for being woken up by
>> svc_{tcp,udp}_data_ready, because nfsd doesn't read from a socket.
> 
> Looking, well, I guess kernel_recvmsg() does read from a socket, but I
> assume calling with MSG_DONTWAIT means that it doesn't block.
> 
>> So with the current implementation, it seems there shouldn't be any
>> problems even if the memory barrier is missing.
> 
> Thanks for the detailed investigation.
> 
> I think it would be worth adding a comment if that might help someone
> having to reinvestigate this again some day.

It would be nice, but I find it difficult to write a comment in the
sunrpc layer why a memory barrier isn't necessary, using the knowledge
of how nfsd uses it, and the current implementation of the network code.

Personally, I would prefer removing the call to waitqueue_active() which
would make the memory barrier totally unnecessary at the cost of a
spin_lock + spin_unlock by unconditionally calling
wake_up_interruptible.
---
Kosuke TATSUKAWA  | 3rd IT Platform Department
                  | IT Platform Division, NEC Corporation
                  | tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1247720 — Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier in sunrpc

Tatsukawa Kosuke wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 03:57:13AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>>> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>> > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 10:41:06AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>>> >> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>> >> > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 06:29:44AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>>> >> >> Neil Brown wrote:
>>> >> >> > Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com> writes:
>>> >> >> > 
>>> >> >> >> There are several places in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c which calls
>>> >> >> >> waitqueue_active() without calling a memory barrier.  Add a memory
>>> >> >> >> barrier just as in wq_has_sleeper().
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> I found this issue when I was looking through the linux source code
>>> >> >> >> for places calling waitqueue_active() before wake_up*(), but without
>>> >> >> >> preceding memory barriers, after sending a patch to fix a similar
>>> >> >> >> issue in drivers/tty/n_tty.c  (Details about the original issue can be
>>> >> >> >> found here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849).
>>> >> >> > 
>>> >> >> > hi,
>>> >> >> > this feels like the wrong approach to the problem.  It requires extra
>>> >> >> > 'smb_mb's to be spread around which are hard to understand as easy to
>>> >> >> > forget.
>>> >> >> > 
>>> >> >> > A quick look seems to suggest that (nearly) every waitqueue_active()
>>> >> >> > will need an smb_mb.  Could we just put the smb_mb() inside
>>> >> >> > waitqueue_active()??
>>> >> >> <snip>
>>> >> >> 
>>> >> >> There are around 200 occurrences of waitqueue_active() in the kernel
>>> >> >> source, and most of the places which use it before wake_up are either
>>> >> >> protected by some spin lock, or already has a memory barrier or some
>>> >> >> kind of atomic operation before it.
>>> >> >> 
>>> >> >> Simply adding smp_mb() to waitqueue_active() would incur extra cost in
>>> >> >> many cases and won't be a good idea.
>>> >> >> 
>>> >> >> Another way to solve this problem is to remove the waitqueue_active(),
>>> >> >> making the code look like this;
>>> >> >> 	if (wq)
>>> >> >> 		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
>>> >> >> This also fixes the problem because the spinlock in the wake_up*() acts
>>> >> >> as a memory barrier and prevents the code from being reordered by the
>>> >> >> CPU (and it also makes the resulting code is much simpler).
>>> >> > 
>>> >> > I might not care which we did, except I don't have the means to test
>>> >> > this quickly, and I guess this is some of our most frequently called
>>> >> > code.
>>> >> > 
>>> >> > I suppose your patch is the most conservative approach, as the
>>> >> > alternative is a spinlock/unlock in wake_up_interruptible, which I
>>> >> > assume is necessarily more expensive than an smp_mb().
>>> >> > 
>>> >> > As far as I can tell it's been this way since forever.  (Well, since a
>>> >> > 2002 patch "NFSD: TCP: rationalise locking in RPC server routines" which
>>> >> > removed some spinlocks from the data_ready routines.)
>>> >> > 
>>> >> > I don't understand what the actual race is yet (which code exactly is
>>> >> > missing the wakeup in this case?  nfsd threads seem to instead get
>>> >> > woken up by the wake_up_process() in svc_xprt_do_enqueue().)
>>> >> 
>>> >> Thank you for the reply.  I tried looking into this.
>>> >> 
>>> >> The callbacks in net/sunrpc/svcsock.c are set up in svc_tcp_init() and
>>> >> svc_udp_init(), which are both called from svc_setup_socket().
>>> >> svc_setup_socket() is called (indirectly) from lockd, nfsd, and nfsv4
>>> >> callback port related code.
>>> >> 
>>> >> Maybe I'm wrong, but there might not be any kernel code that is using
>>> >> the socket's wait queue in this case.
>>> > 
>>> > As Trond points out there are probably waiters internal to the
>>> > networking code.
>>> 
>>> Trond and Bruce, thank you for the comment.  I was able to find the call
>>> to the wait function that was called from nfsd.
>>> 
>>> sk_stream_wait_connect() and sk_stream_wait_memory() were called from
>>> either do_tcp_sendpages() or tcp_sendmsg() called from within
>>> svc_send().  sk_stream_wait_connect() shouldn't be called at this point,
>>> because the socket has already been used to receive the rpc request.
>>> 
>>> On the wake_up side, sk_write_space() is called from the following
>>> locations.  The relevant ones seems to be preceded by atomic_sub or a
>>> memory barrier.
>>> + ksocknal_write_space [drivers/staging/lustre/lnet/klnds/socklnd/socklnd_lib.c:633]
>>> + atm_pop_raw [net/atm/raw.c:40]
>>> + sock_setsockopt [net/core/sock.c:740]
>>> + sock_wfree [net/core/sock.c:1630]
>>>   Preceded by atomic_sub in sock_wfree()
>>> + ccid3_hc_tx_packet_recv [net/dccp/ccids/ccid3.c:442]
>>> + do_tcp_sendpages [net/ipv4/tcp.c:1008]
>>> + tcp_sendmsg [net/ipv4/tcp.c:1300]
>>> + do_tcp_setsockopt [net/ipv4/tcp.c:2597]
>>> + tcp_new_space [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:4885]
>>>   Preceded by smp_mb__after_atomic in tcp_check_space()
>>> + llc_conn_state_process [net/llc/llc_conn.c:148]
>>> + pipe_rcv_status [net/phonet/pep.c:312]
>>> + pipe_do_rcv [net/phonet/pep.c:440]
>>> + pipe_start_flow_control [net/phonet/pep.c:554]
>>> + svc_sock_setbufsize [net/sunrpc/svcsock.c:45]
>>> 
>>> sk_state_change() calls related to TCP/IP were called from the following
>>> places.
>>> + inet_shutdown [net/ipv4/af_inet.c:825]
>>>   This shouldn't be called when waiting
>>> + tcp_done [net/ipv4/tcp.c:3078]
>>>   spin_lock*/spin_unlock* is called in lock_timer_base
>>> + tcp_fin [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:4031]
>>>   atomic_long_sub is called from sk_memory_allocated_sub called within
>>>   sk_mem_reclaim
>>> + tcp_finish_connect [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:5415]
>>>   This shoudn't be called when waiting
>>> + tcp_rcv_state_process [net/ipv4/tcp_input.c:5807,5880]
>>>   The socket shouldn't be in TCP_SYN_RECV nor TCP_FIN_WAIT1 states when
>>>   waiting
>>> 
>>> I think the wait queue won't be used for being woken up by
>>> svc_{tcp,udp}_data_ready, because nfsd doesn't read from a socket.
>> 
>> Looking, well, I guess kernel_recvmsg() does read from a socket, but I
>> assume calling with MSG_DONTWAIT means that it doesn't block.
>> 
>>> So with the current implementation, it seems there shouldn't be any
>>> problems even if the memory barrier is missing.
>> 
>> Thanks for the detailed investigation.
>> 
>> I think it would be worth adding a comment if that might help someone
>> having to reinvestigate this again some day.
> 
> It would be nice, but I find it difficult to write a comment in the
> sunrpc layer why a memory barrier isn't necessary, using the knowledge
> of how nfsd uses it, and the current implementation of the network code.
> 
> Personally, I would prefer removing the call to waitqueue_active() which
> would make the memory barrier totally unnecessary at the cost of a
> spin_lock + spin_unlock by unconditionally calling
> wake_up_interruptible.

On second thought, the callbacks will be called frequently from the tcp
code, so it wouldn't be a good idea.
---
Kosuke TATSUKAWA  | 3rd IT Platform Department
                  | IT Platform Division, NEC Corporation
                  | tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1248165 — Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier in sunrpc

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:44:20AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
> Tatsukawa Kosuke wrote:
> > J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> >> Thanks for the detailed investigation.
> >> 
> >> I think it would be worth adding a comment if that might help someone
> >> having to reinvestigate this again some day.
> > 
> > It would be nice, but I find it difficult to write a comment in the
> > sunrpc layer why a memory barrier isn't necessary, using the knowledge
> > of how nfsd uses it, and the current implementation of the network code.
> > 
> > Personally, I would prefer removing the call to waitqueue_active() which
> > would make the memory barrier totally unnecessary at the cost of a
> > spin_lock + spin_unlock by unconditionally calling
> > wake_up_interruptible.
> 
> On second thought, the callbacks will be called frequently from the tcp
> code, so it wouldn't be a good idea.

So, I was even considering documenting it like this, if it's not
overkill.

Hmm... but if this is right, then we may as well ask why we're doing the
wakeups at all.  Might be educational to test the code with them
removed.

--b.

commit 0882cfeb39e0
Author: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu Oct 15 16:53:41 2015 -0400

    svcrpc: document lack of some memory barriers.
    
    Kosuke Tatsukawa points out an odd lack of memory barriers in some sites
    here.  I think the code's correct, but it's probably worth documenting.
    
    Reported-by: Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com>

diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
index 856407fa085e..90480993ec4a 100644
--- a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
@@ -399,6 +399,25 @@ static int svc_sock_secure_port(struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
 	return svc_port_is_privileged(svc_addr(rqstp));
 }
 
+static void svc_no_smp_mb(void)
+{
+	/*
+	 * Kosuke Tatsukawa points out there should normally be an
+	 * smp_mb() at the callsites of this function.  (Either that or
+	 * we could just drop the waitqueue_active() checks.)
+	 *
+	 * It appears they aren't currently necessary, though, basically
+	 * because nfsd does non-blocking reads from these sockets, so
+	 * the only places we wait on this waitqueue is in sendpage and
+	 * sendmsg, which won't be waiting for wakeups on newly arrived
+	 * data.
+	 *
+	 * Maybe we should add the memory barriers anyway, but these are
+	 * hot paths so we'd need to be convinced there's no sigificant
+	 * penalty.
+	 */
+}
+
 /*
  * INET callback when data has been received on the socket.
  */
@@ -414,7 +433,7 @@ static void svc_udp_data_ready(struct sock *sk)
 		set_bit(XPT_DATA, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
 		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
 	}
-	smp_mb();
+	svc_no_smp_mb();
 	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
 		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
 }
@@ -433,7 +452,7 @@ static void svc_write_space(struct sock *sk)
 		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
 	}
 
-	smp_mb();
+	svc_no_smp_mb();
 	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq)) {
 		dprintk("RPC svc_write_space: someone sleeping on %p\n",
 		       svsk);
@@ -789,7 +808,7 @@ static void svc_tcp_listen_data_ready(struct sock *sk)
 	}
 
 	wq = sk_sleep(sk);
-	smp_mb();
+	svc_no_smp_mb();
 	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
 		wake_up_interruptible_all(wq);
 }
@@ -811,7 +830,7 @@ static void svc_tcp_state_change(struct sock *sk)
 		set_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
 		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
 	}
-	smp_mb();
+	svc_no_smp_mb();
 	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
 		wake_up_interruptible_all(wq);
 }
@@ -827,7 +846,7 @@ static void svc_tcp_data_ready(struct sock *sk)
 		set_bit(XPT_DATA, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
 		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
 	}
-	smp_mb();
+	svc_no_smp_mb();
 	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
 		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
 }
@@ -1599,7 +1618,7 @@ static void svc_sock_detach(struct svc_xprt *xprt)
 	sk->sk_write_space = svsk->sk_owspace;
 
 	wq = sk_sleep(sk);
-	smp_mb();
+	svc_no_smp_mb();
 	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
 		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
 }
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1248275 — Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier in sunrpc

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:44:20AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>> Tatsukawa Kosuke wrote:
>> > J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> >> Thanks for the detailed investigation.
>> >> 
>> >> I think it would be worth adding a comment if that might help someone
>> >> having to reinvestigate this again some day.
>> > 
>> > It would be nice, but I find it difficult to write a comment in the
>> > sunrpc layer why a memory barrier isn't necessary, using the knowledge
>> > of how nfsd uses it, and the current implementation of the network code.
>> > 
>> > Personally, I would prefer removing the call to waitqueue_active() which
>> > would make the memory barrier totally unnecessary at the cost of a
>> > spin_lock + spin_unlock by unconditionally calling
>> > wake_up_interruptible.
>> 
>> On second thought, the callbacks will be called frequently from the tcp
>> code, so it wouldn't be a good idea.
>
> So, I was even considering documenting it like this, if it's not
> overkill.
>
> Hmm... but if this is right, then we may as well ask why we're doing the
> wakeups at all.  Might be educational to test the code with them
> removed.
>
> --b.
>
> commit 0882cfeb39e0
> Author: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
> Date:   Thu Oct 15 16:53:41 2015 -0400
>
>     svcrpc: document lack of some memory barriers.
>     
>     Kosuke Tatsukawa points out an odd lack of memory barriers in some sites
>     here.  I think the code's correct, but it's probably worth documenting.
>     
>     Reported-by: Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com>
>
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> index 856407fa085e..90480993ec4a 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> @@ -399,6 +399,25 @@ static int svc_sock_secure_port(struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
>  	return svc_port_is_privileged(svc_addr(rqstp));
>  }
>  
> +static void svc_no_smp_mb(void)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * Kosuke Tatsukawa points out there should normally be an
> +	 * smp_mb() at the callsites of this function.  (Either that or
> +	 * we could just drop the waitqueue_active() checks.)
> +	 *
> +	 * It appears they aren't currently necessary, though, basically
> +	 * because nfsd does non-blocking reads from these sockets, so
> +	 * the only places we wait on this waitqueue is in sendpage and
> +	 * sendmsg, which won't be waiting for wakeups on newly arrived
> +	 * data.
> +	 *
> +	 * Maybe we should add the memory barriers anyway, but these are
> +	 * hot paths so we'd need to be convinced there's no sigificant
> +	 * penalty.
> +	 */
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * INET callback when data has been received on the socket.
>   */
> @@ -414,7 +433,7 @@ static void svc_udp_data_ready(struct sock *sk)
>  		set_bit(XPT_DATA, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
>  		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
>  	}
> -	smp_mb();
> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
>  		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
>  }
> @@ -433,7 +452,7 @@ static void svc_write_space(struct sock *sk)
>  		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
>  	}
>  
> -	smp_mb();
> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq)) {
>  		dprintk("RPC svc_write_space: someone sleeping on %p\n",
>  		       svsk);
> @@ -789,7 +808,7 @@ static void svc_tcp_listen_data_ready(struct sock *sk)
>  	}
>  
>  	wq = sk_sleep(sk);
> -	smp_mb();
> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
>  		wake_up_interruptible_all(wq);
>  }
> @@ -811,7 +830,7 @@ static void svc_tcp_state_change(struct sock *sk)
>  		set_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
>  		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
>  	}
> -	smp_mb();
> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
>  		wake_up_interruptible_all(wq);
>  }
> @@ -827,7 +846,7 @@ static void svc_tcp_data_ready(struct sock *sk)
>  		set_bit(XPT_DATA, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
>  		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
>  	}
> -	smp_mb();
> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
>  		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
>  }
> @@ -1599,7 +1618,7 @@ static void svc_sock_detach(struct svc_xprt *xprt)
>  	sk->sk_write_space = svsk->sk_owspace;
>  
>  	wq = sk_sleep(sk);
> -	smp_mb();
> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
>  		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
>  }

I would feel a lot more comfortable if you instead created:

static inline bool sunrpc_waitqueue_active(struct wait_queue_head *wq)
{
	if (!wq)
        	return false;
        /* long comment abot not needing a memory barrier */
        return waitqueue_active(wq);
}

and then replace various "if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))" calls with
if (sunrpc_waitqueue_active(wq))"

The comment seems readable and seems to make sense.

NeilBrown

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1248296 — Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier in sunrpc

J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:44:20AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>> Tatsukawa Kosuke wrote:
>> > J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> >> Thanks for the detailed investigation.
>> >> 
>> >> I think it would be worth adding a comment if that might help someone
>> >> having to reinvestigate this again some day.
>> > 
>> > It would be nice, but I find it difficult to write a comment in the
>> > sunrpc layer why a memory barrier isn't necessary, using the knowledge
>> > of how nfsd uses it, and the current implementation of the network code.
>> > 
>> > Personally, I would prefer removing the call to waitqueue_active() which
>> > would make the memory barrier totally unnecessary at the cost of a
>> > spin_lock + spin_unlock by unconditionally calling
>> > wake_up_interruptible.
>> 
>> On second thought, the callbacks will be called frequently from the tcp
>> code, so it wouldn't be a good idea.
> 
> So, I was even considering documenting it like this, if it's not
> overkill.
> 
> Hmm... but if this is right, then we may as well ask why we're doing the
> wakeups at all.  Might be educational to test the code with them
> removed.

sk_write_space will be called in sock_wfree() with UDP/IP each time
kfree_skb() is called.  With TCP/IP, sk_write_space is only called if
SOCK_NOSPACE has been set.

sk_data_ready will be called in both tcp_rcv_established() for TCP/IP
and in sock_queue_rcv_skb() for UDP/IP.  The latter lacks a memory
barrier with sk_data_ready called right after __skb_queue_tail().
I think this hasn't caused any problems because sk_data_ready wasn't
used.


> --b.
> 
> commit 0882cfeb39e0
> Author: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
> Date:   Thu Oct 15 16:53:41 2015 -0400
> 
>     svcrpc: document lack of some memory barriers.
>     
>     Kosuke Tatsukawa points out an odd lack of memory barriers in some sites
>     here.  I think the code's correct, but it's probably worth documenting.
>     
>     Reported-by: Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com>
> 
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> index 856407fa085e..90480993ec4a 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
> @@ -399,6 +399,25 @@ static int svc_sock_secure_port(struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
>  	return svc_port_is_privileged(svc_addr(rqstp));
>  }
>  
> +static void svc_no_smp_mb(void)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * Kosuke Tatsukawa points out there should normally be an
> +	 * smp_mb() at the callsites of this function.  (Either that or
> +	 * we could just drop the waitqueue_active() checks.)
> +	 *
> +	 * It appears they aren't currently necessary, though, basically
> +	 * because nfsd does non-blocking reads from these sockets, so
> +	 * the only places we wait on this waitqueue is in sendpage and
> +	 * sendmsg, which won't be waiting for wakeups on newly arrived
> +	 * data.
> +	 *
> +	 * Maybe we should add the memory barriers anyway, but these are
> +	 * hot paths so we'd need to be convinced there's no sigificant
> +	 * penalty.
> +	 */
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * INET callback when data has been received on the socket.
>   */
> @@ -414,7 +433,7 @@ static void svc_udp_data_ready(struct sock *sk)
>  		set_bit(XPT_DATA, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
>  		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
>  	}
> -	smp_mb();
> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
>  		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
>  }
> @@ -433,7 +452,7 @@ static void svc_write_space(struct sock *sk)
>  		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
>  	}
>  
> -	smp_mb();
> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq)) {
>  		dprintk("RPC svc_write_space: someone sleeping on %p\n",
>  		       svsk);
> @@ -789,7 +808,7 @@ static void svc_tcp_listen_data_ready(struct sock *sk)
>  	}
>  
>  	wq = sk_sleep(sk);
> -	smp_mb();
> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
>  		wake_up_interruptible_all(wq);
>  }
> @@ -811,7 +830,7 @@ static void svc_tcp_state_change(struct sock *sk)
>  		set_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
>  		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
>  	}
> -	smp_mb();
> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
>  		wake_up_interruptible_all(wq);
>  }
> @@ -827,7 +846,7 @@ static void svc_tcp_data_ready(struct sock *sk)
>  		set_bit(XPT_DATA, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
>  		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
>  	}
> -	smp_mb();
> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
>  		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
>  }
> @@ -1599,7 +1618,7 @@ static void svc_sock_detach(struct svc_xprt *xprt)
>  	sk->sk_write_space = svsk->sk_owspace;
>  
>  	wq = sk_sleep(sk);
> -	smp_mb();
> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
>  		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
>  }
---
Kosuke TATSUKAWA  | 3rd IT Platform Department
                  | IT Platform Division, NEC Corporation
                  | tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1248305 — Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier in sunrpc

Tatsukawa Kosuke wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:44:20AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>>> Tatsukawa Kosuke wrote:
>>> > J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>> >> Thanks for the detailed investigation.
>>> >> 
>>> >> I think it would be worth adding a comment if that might help someone
>>> >> having to reinvestigate this again some day.
>>> > 
>>> > It would be nice, but I find it difficult to write a comment in the
>>> > sunrpc layer why a memory barrier isn't necessary, using the knowledge
>>> > of how nfsd uses it, and the current implementation of the network code.
>>> > 
>>> > Personally, I would prefer removing the call to waitqueue_active() which
>>> > would make the memory barrier totally unnecessary at the cost of a
>>> > spin_lock + spin_unlock by unconditionally calling
>>> > wake_up_interruptible.
>>> 
>>> On second thought, the callbacks will be called frequently from the tcp
>>> code, so it wouldn't be a good idea.
>> 
>> So, I was even considering documenting it like this, if it's not
>> overkill.
>> 
>> Hmm... but if this is right, then we may as well ask why we're doing the
>> wakeups at all.  Might be educational to test the code with them
>> removed.
> 
> sk_write_space will be called in sock_wfree() with UDP/IP each time
> kfree_skb() is called.  With TCP/IP, sk_write_space is only called if
> SOCK_NOSPACE has been set.
> 
> sk_data_ready will be called in both tcp_rcv_established() for TCP/IP
> and in sock_queue_rcv_skb() for UDP/IP.  The latter lacks a memory
> barrier with sk_data_ready called right after __skb_queue_tail().
> I think this hasn't caused any problems because sk_data_ready wasn't
> used.

Actually, svc_udp_data_ready() calls set_bit() which is an atomic
operation.  So there won't be a problem unless svsk is NULL.


>> --b.
>> 
>> commit 0882cfeb39e0
>> Author: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
>> Date:   Thu Oct 15 16:53:41 2015 -0400
>> 
>>     svcrpc: document lack of some memory barriers.
>>     
>>     Kosuke Tatsukawa points out an odd lack of memory barriers in some sites
>>     here.  I think the code's correct, but it's probably worth documenting.
>>     
>>     Reported-by: Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com>
>> 
>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
>> index 856407fa085e..90480993ec4a 100644
>> --- a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
>> @@ -399,6 +399,25 @@ static int svc_sock_secure_port(struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
>>  	return svc_port_is_privileged(svc_addr(rqstp));
>>  }
>>  
>> +static void svc_no_smp_mb(void)
>> +{
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Kosuke Tatsukawa points out there should normally be an
>> +	 * smp_mb() at the callsites of this function.  (Either that or
>> +	 * we could just drop the waitqueue_active() checks.)
>> +	 *
>> +	 * It appears they aren't currently necessary, though, basically
>> +	 * because nfsd does non-blocking reads from these sockets, so
>> +	 * the only places we wait on this waitqueue is in sendpage and
>> +	 * sendmsg, which won't be waiting for wakeups on newly arrived
>> +	 * data.
>> +	 *
>> +	 * Maybe we should add the memory barriers anyway, but these are
>> +	 * hot paths so we'd need to be convinced there's no sigificant
>> +	 * penalty.
>> +	 */
>> +}
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * INET callback when data has been received on the socket.
>>   */
>> @@ -414,7 +433,7 @@ static void svc_udp_data_ready(struct sock *sk)
>>  		set_bit(XPT_DATA, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
>>  		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
>>  	}
>> -	smp_mb();
>> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
>>  		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
>>  }
>> @@ -433,7 +452,7 @@ static void svc_write_space(struct sock *sk)
>>  		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
>>  	}
>>  
>> -	smp_mb();
>> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq)) {
>>  		dprintk("RPC svc_write_space: someone sleeping on %p\n",
>>  		       svsk);
>> @@ -789,7 +808,7 @@ static void svc_tcp_listen_data_ready(struct sock *sk)
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	wq = sk_sleep(sk);
>> -	smp_mb();
>> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
>>  		wake_up_interruptible_all(wq);
>>  }
>> @@ -811,7 +830,7 @@ static void svc_tcp_state_change(struct sock *sk)
>>  		set_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
>>  		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
>>  	}
>> -	smp_mb();
>> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
>>  		wake_up_interruptible_all(wq);
>>  }
>> @@ -827,7 +846,7 @@ static void svc_tcp_data_ready(struct sock *sk)
>>  		set_bit(XPT_DATA, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
>>  		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
>>  	}
>> -	smp_mb();
>> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
>>  		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
>>  }
>> @@ -1599,7 +1618,7 @@ static void svc_sock_detach(struct svc_xprt *xprt)
>>  	sk->sk_write_space = svsk->sk_owspace;
>>  
>>  	wq = sk_sleep(sk);
>> -	smp_mb();
>> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
>>  		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
>>  }
---
Kosuke TATSUKAWA  | 3rd IT Platform Department
                  | IT Platform Division, NEC Corporation
                  | tatsu@ab.jp.nec.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web