Re: [PATCH v2] tty: fix stall caused by missing memory barrier in drivers/tty/n_tty.c
From: Peter Hurley
Date: Fri Oct 09 2015 - 13:28:39 EST
On 10/02/2015 04:27 AM, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
> My colleague ran into a program stall on a x86_64 server, where
> n_tty_read() was waiting for data even if there was data in the buffer
> in the pty. kernel stack for the stuck process looks like below.
> #0 [ffff88303d107b58] __schedule at ffffffff815c4b20
> #1 [ffff88303d107bd0] schedule at ffffffff815c513e
> #2 [ffff88303d107bf0] schedule_timeout at ffffffff815c7818
> #3 [ffff88303d107ca0] wait_woken at ffffffff81096bd2
> #4 [ffff88303d107ce0] n_tty_read at ffffffff8136fa23
> #5 [ffff88303d107dd0] tty_read at ffffffff81368013
> #6 [ffff88303d107e20] __vfs_read at ffffffff811a3704
> #7 [ffff88303d107ec0] vfs_read at ffffffff811a3a57
> #8 [ffff88303d107f00] sys_read at ffffffff811a4306
> #9 [ffff88303d107f50] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath at ffffffff815c86d7
>
> There seems to be two problems causing this issue.
>
> First, in drivers/tty/n_tty.c, __receive_buf() stores the data and
> updates ldata->commit_head using smp_store_release() and then checks
> the wait queue using waitqueue_active(). However, since there is no
> memory barrier, __receive_buf() could return without calling
> wake_up_interactive_poll(), and at the same time, n_tty_read() could
> start to wait in wait_woken() as in the following chart.
>
> __receive_buf() n_tty_read()
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> if (waitqueue_active(&tty->read_wait))
> /* Memory operations issued after the
> RELEASE may be completed before the
> RELEASE operation has completed */
> add_wait_queue(&tty->read_wait, &wait);
> ...
> if (!input_available_p(tty, 0)) {
> smp_store_release(&ldata->commit_head,
> ldata->read_head);
> ...
> timeout = wait_woken(&wait,
> TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, timeout);
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tatsukawa-san,
I would still like to root-cause the reported stall; is the reported
stall resolved if smp_mb() is added before the waitqueue_active()
in __receive_buf()?
Regards,
Peter Hurley
> The second problem is that n_tty_read() also lacks a memory barrier
> call and could also cause __receive_buf() to return without calling
> wake_up_interactive_poll(), and n_tty_read() to wait in wait_woken()
> as in the chart below.
>
> __receive_buf() n_tty_read()
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
> /* from add_wait_queue() */
> ...
> if (!input_available_p(tty, 0)) {
> /* Memory operations issued after the
> RELEASE may be completed before the
> RELEASE operation has completed */
> smp_store_release(&ldata->commit_head,
> ldata->read_head);
> if (waitqueue_active(&tty->read_wait))
> __add_wait_queue(q, wait);
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock,flags);
> /* from add_wait_queue() */
> ...
> timeout = wait_woken(&wait,
> TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, timeout);
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> There are also other places in drivers/tty/n_tty.c which have similar
> calls to waitqueue_active(), so instead of adding many memory barrier
> calls, this patch simply removes the call to waitqueue_active(),
> leaving just wake_up*() behind.
>
> This fixes both problems because, even though the memory access before
> or after the spinlocks in both wake_up*() and add_wait_queue() can
> sneak into the critical section, it cannot go past it and the critical
> section assures that they will be serialized (please see "INTER-CPU
> ACQUIRING BARRIER EFFECTS" in Documentation/memory-barriers.txt for a
> better explanation). Moreover, the resulting code is much simpler.
>
> Latency measurement using a ping-pong test over a pty doesn't show any
> visible performance drop.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ---
> v2:
> - Removed unnecessary hunks from v1 based on comments from Peter.
> v1:
> - https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/28/849
> ---
> drivers/tty/n_tty.c | 15 +++++----------
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/n_tty.c b/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
> index 20932cc..b09023b 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
> @@ -343,8 +343,7 @@ static void n_tty_packet_mode_flush(struct tty_struct *tty)
> spin_lock_irqsave(&tty->ctrl_lock, flags);
> tty->ctrl_status |= TIOCPKT_FLUSHREAD;
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tty->ctrl_lock, flags);
> - if (waitqueue_active(&tty->link->read_wait))
> - wake_up_interruptible(&tty->link->read_wait);
> + wake_up_interruptible(&tty->link->read_wait);
> }
> }
>
> @@ -1382,8 +1381,7 @@ handle_newline:
> put_tty_queue(c, ldata);
> smp_store_release(&ldata->canon_head, ldata->read_head);
> kill_fasync(&tty->fasync, SIGIO, POLL_IN);
> - if (waitqueue_active(&tty->read_wait))
> - wake_up_interruptible_poll(&tty->read_wait, POLLIN);
> + wake_up_interruptible_poll(&tty->read_wait, POLLIN);
> return 0;
> }
> }
> @@ -1667,8 +1665,7 @@ static void __receive_buf(struct tty_struct *tty, const unsigned char *cp,
>
> if ((read_cnt(ldata) >= ldata->minimum_to_wake) || L_EXTPROC(tty)) {
> kill_fasync(&tty->fasync, SIGIO, POLL_IN);
> - if (waitqueue_active(&tty->read_wait))
> - wake_up_interruptible_poll(&tty->read_wait, POLLIN);
> + wake_up_interruptible_poll(&tty->read_wait, POLLIN);
> }
> }
>
> @@ -1887,10 +1884,8 @@ static void n_tty_set_termios(struct tty_struct *tty, struct ktermios *old)
> }
>
> /* The termios change make the tty ready for I/O */
> - if (waitqueue_active(&tty->write_wait))
> - wake_up_interruptible(&tty->write_wait);
> - if (waitqueue_active(&tty->read_wait))
> - wake_up_interruptible(&tty->read_wait);
> + wake_up_interruptible(&tty->write_wait);
> + wake_up_interruptible(&tty->read_wait);
> }
>
> /**
>
--
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/