Re: Revert "aio: fix aio request leak when events are reaped by user space"

[Dan Aloni]

On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 02:05:31PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 09:51:10PM +0300, Dan Aloni wrote:
> > Ben, seems that the test program needs some twidling to make the bug
> > appear still by setting MAX_IOS to 256 (and it still passes on a
> > kernel with the original patch reverted). Under this condition the
> > ring buffer size remains 128 (here, 32*4 CPUs), and it is overrun on
> > the second attempt.
> 
> Thanks for checking that.  I've made some further changes to your test 
> program to be able to support both userspace event reaping and using the 
> io_getevents() syscall.  I also added a --max-ios= parameter to allow 
> using different values of MAX_IOS for testing.  A copy of the modified 
> source is available at http://www.kvack.org/~bcrl/20140824-aio_bug.c .  
> With this version of the patch, both means of reaping events now work 
> corectly.  The aio_bug.c code still needs to be added to libaio's set 
> of tests, but that's a separate email.

I like your extension to the test program. I have a suggestion for
the integration inside libaio's harness, since the original issue
depended on the size of the ring buffer, let's have max_ios be picked
from {ring->nr + 1, ring->nr - 1, ring->nr}*{1,2,3,4} for the various
test cases. I guess Jeff who is maintaining it will have some ideas
too.
 
>[snip] 
> If you can have a quick look and acknowledge with your Signed-off-by, I'll 
> add it to the commit and send a pull request.  With these changes and the 
> modified aio_bug.c, the test passes using various random values for 
> max_ios, as well as both with and without --user_getevents validating that
> both regressions involved have now been fixed.

I haven't tested it yet due to lack of more time today (will give it a
try tomorrow), but I've reviewed and didn't find any problem.

Signed-off-by: Dan Aloni <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

> 
> ...
> > BTW, I am not an expert on this code so I am still not sure that
> > 'ctx->completed_events' wouldn't get wrong if for instance - one SMP
> > core does userspace event reaping and another calls io_submit(). Do
> > you think it would work alright in that case?
> 
> This should be SMP safe: both ctx->completed_events and ctx->tail are 
> protected ctx->completion_lock.  Additionally, possible races with 
> grabbing the value of ring->head should also be safe, and I added a 
> comment explaining why.  Does that address your concerns?  Cheers,

Yes, thanks.

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