Re: frequent lockups in 3.18rc4

[Jens Axboe]

On 11/17/2014 03:43 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2014, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>  	llist_for_each_entry_safe(csd, csd_next, entry, llist) {
>>> -		csd->func(csd->info);
>>> +		smp_call_func_t func = csd->func;
>>> +		void *info = csd->info;
>>>  		csd_unlock(csd);
>>> +
>>> +		func(info);
>>
>> No, that won't work for synchronous calls:
>>
>>     CPU 0      	    		CPU 1
>>
>>     csd_lock(csd);
>>     queue_csd();
>>     ipi();
>> 				func = csd->func;
>> 				info = csd->info;
>> 				csd_unlock(csd);
>>     csd_lock_wait();    
>> 				func(info);
>>    
>> The csd_lock_wait() side will succeed and therefor assume that the
>> call has been completed while the function has not been called at
>> all. Interesting explosions to follow.
>>
>> The proper solution is to revert that commit and properly analyze the
>> problem which Jens was trying to solve and work from there.
> 
> So a combo of both (Jens and yours) might do the trick. Patch below.
> 
> I think what Jens was trying to solve is:
> 
>      CPU 0      	    		CPU 1
>  
>      csd_lock(csd);
>      queue_csd();
>      ipi();
>  				csd->func(csd->info);
>      wait_for_completion(csd);
> 				   complete(csd);
>      reuse_csd(csd);		
> 				csd_unlock(csd);

Maybe... The above looks ok to me from a functional point of view, but
now I can't convince myself that the blk-mq use case is correct.

I'll try and backout the original patch and reproduce the issue, that
should jog my memory and give me full understanding of what the issue I
faced back then was.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/