xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: memory barrier before wake_up_bit()

To: Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: memory barrier before wake_up_bit()
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 10:06:34 +1100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <510FDE17.9020207@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <510FDDE5.4050103@xxxxxxxxxxx> <510FDE17.9020207@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 10:13:11AM -0600, Alex Elder wrote:
> In xfs_ifunlock() there is a call to wake_up_bit() after clearing
> the flush lock on the xfs inode.  This is not guaranteed to be safe,
> as noted in the comments above wake_up_bit() beginning with:
> 
>     In order for this to function properly, as it uses
>     waitqueue_active() internally, some kind of memory
>     barrier must be done prior to calling this.
> 
> I claim no mastery of the details and subtlety of memory barrier
> use, but I believe the issue is that the call to waitqueue_active()
> in __wake_up_bit(), could be operating on a value of "wq" that is
> out of date.  This patch fixes this by inserting a call to smp_mb()
> in xfs_iunlock before calling wake_up_bit(), along the lines of
> what's done in unlock_new_inode().  A litte more explanation
> follows.
> 
> 
> In __xfs_iflock(), prepare_to_wait_exclusive() adds a wait queue
> entry to the end of a bit wait queue before setting the current task
> state to UNINTERRUPTIBLE.  And although setting the task state
> issues a full smp_mb() (which ensures changes made are visible to
> the rest of the system at that point) that alone does not guarantee
> that other CPUs will instantly avail themselves of the updated
> value.  A separate CPU needs to issue at least a read barrier in
> order to ensure the wq value it uses to determine whether there are
> waiters is up-to-date, and waitqueue_active() does not do that.

You can probably trim most of this and simply point at the comment
describing wake_up_bit()....

> I came to suspect this code because we had a customer with a system
> that was hung with one or more tasks stuck in __xfs_iflock().  A
> little poking around the affected code led me to the comments in
> wake_up_bit().
> 
> Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h |    1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
> index 22baf6e..237e7f6 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
> @@ -419,6 +419,7 @@ static inline void xfs_iflock(struct xfs_inode *ip)
>  static inline void xfs_ifunlock(struct xfs_inode *ip)
>  {
>       xfs_iflags_clear(ip, XFS_IFLOCK);
> +     smp_mb();
>       wake_up_bit(&ip->i_flags, __XFS_IFLOCK_BIT);

ACK, smp_mb() is needed because spin_unlock() is not a memory
barrier and so not everyone will have seen the bit being cleared.

Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>