Re: (sashiko review) [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm/damon/core: fix damon_call() vs kdamond_fn() exit race deadlock

[SeongJae Park]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 06:43:29 -0700 SeongJae Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Forwarding Sashiko review for doing discussions via mails.
> 
> # review url: https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260326062347.88569-3-sj@xxxxxxxxxx
> # start of sashiko.dev inline review
> commit b886bf00a72b1462f29533c91c431cd2ba3fa3a6
> Author: SeongJae Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> mm/damon/core: fix damon_call() vs kdamond_fn() exit race deadlock
> 
> This commit introduces a call_controls_obsolete flag to protect damon_call()
> from racing with the kdamond termination sequence. This replaces the previous
> after-registration damon_is_running() check.
> 
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20260325141956.87144-1-sj@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
> > diff --git a/mm/damon/core.c b/mm/damon/core.c
> > index db6c67e52d2b8..a2b553e2c5a81 100644
> > --- a/mm/damon/core.c
> > +++ b/mm/damon/core.c
> [ ... ]
> > @@ -1629,10 +1600,12 @@ int damon_call(struct damon_ctx *ctx, struct damon_call_control *control)
> >  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&control->list);
> >  
> >  	mutex_lock(&ctx->call_controls_lock);
> > +	if (ctx->call_controls_obsolete) {
> > +		mutex_unlock(&ctx->call_controls_lock);
> > +		return -ECANCELED;
> > +	}
> >  	list_add_tail(&control->list, &ctx->call_controls);
> >  	mutex_unlock(&ctx->call_controls_lock);
> > -	if (!damon_is_running(ctx))
> > -		return damon_call_handle_inactive_ctx(ctx, control);
> 
> Does this removal cause an indefinite wait if damon_call() is invoked on an
> unstarted context?
> 
> For a newly allocated damon_ctx, call_controls_obsolete is zero-initialized
> to false. Without the damon_is_running() check, if a caller invokes
> damon_call() before damon_start(), it appears the request will be queued and
> block on wait_for_completion() indefinitely since no kdamond thread is
> running to handle or cancel it.

Yes.  But it is clearly wrong usage of this function.  I will add a comment
clarifying this, e.g., "this function shouldn't be called for unstarted DAMON
context.  In the case, it could be indefinitely sleep."

> 
> >  	if (control->repeat)
> >  		return 0;
> >  	wait_for_completion(&control->completion);
> [ ... ]
> > @@ -3062,6 +3038,9 @@ static int kdamond_fn(void *data)
> >  	damon_destroy_targets(ctx);
> >  
> >  	kfree(ctx->regions_score_histogram);
> > +	mutex_lock(&ctx->call_controls_lock);
> > +	ctx->call_controls_obsolete = true;
> > +	mutex_unlock(&ctx->call_controls_lock);
> >  	kdamond_call(ctx, true);
> >  	damos_walk_cancel(ctx);
> 
> Can this sequence also cause a spurious -ECANCELED failure when a context is
> restarted?
> 
> When restarting a context, kdamond_fn() signals kdamond_started before
> calling kdamond_init_ctx():
> 
>         complete(&ctx->kdamond_started);
>         kdamond_init_ctx(ctx);
> 
> If damon_start() unblocks and immediately invokes damon_call(), couldn't it
> observe the stale call_controls_obsolete == true from the previous run and
> return -ECANCELED, since kdamond_init_ctx() has not yet reset the flag?

Good catch, I will do the call_controls_obsolete unset before the complete()
call.

> 
> Also, is damos_walk() vulnerable to the same termination race being fixed
> here for damon_call()?
> 
> In kdamond_fn(), damos_walk_cancel() processes cancellations before
> ctx->kdamond is set to NULL. If damos_walk() is called during this window,
> it checks damon_is_running() (which still returns true), sets the walk
> control, and blocks on wait_for_completion().
> 
> Since cancellations are already processed, will it wait indefinitely?

Yes.  I'm working on it for another patch.


Thanks,
SJ

[...]