Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Sat, 9 Apr 2022 08:40:00 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] percpu_ref: call wake_up_all() after percpu_ref_put() completes | From | Qi Zheng <> |
| |
On 2022/4/9 1:41 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 06:33:35PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote: >> In the percpu_ref_call_confirm_rcu(), we call the wake_up_all() >> before calling percpu_ref_put(), which will cause the value of >> percpu_ref to be unstable when percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_sync() >> returns. >> >> CPU0 CPU1 >> >> percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_sync(&ref) >> --> percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic(&ref) >> --> percpu_ref_get(ref); /* put after confirmation */ >> call_rcu(&ref->data->rcu, percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_rcu); >> >> percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_rcu >> --> percpu_ref_call_confirm_rcu >> --> data->confirm_switch = NULL; >> wake_up_all(&percpu_ref_switch_waitq); >> >> /* here waiting to wake up */ >> wait_event(percpu_ref_switch_waitq, !ref->data->confirm_switch); >> (A)percpu_ref_put(ref); >> /* The value of &ref is unstable! */ >> percpu_ref_is_zero(&ref) >> (B)percpu_ref_put(ref); >> >> As shown above, assuming that the counts on each cpu add up to 0 before >> calling percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_sync(), we expect that after switching >> to atomic mode, percpu_ref_is_zero() can return true. But actually it will >> return different values in the two cases of A and B, which is not what >> we expected. >> >> Maybe the original purpose of percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_sync() is >> just to ensure that the conversion to atomic mode is completed, but it >> should not return with an extra reference count. >> >> Calling wake_up_all() after percpu_ref_put() ensures that the value of >> percpu_ref is stable after percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_sync() returns. >> So just do it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> >> --- >> lib/percpu-refcount.c | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/lib/percpu-refcount.c b/lib/percpu-refcount.c >> index af9302141bcf..b11b4152c8cd 100644 >> --- a/lib/percpu-refcount.c >> +++ b/lib/percpu-refcount.c >> @@ -154,13 +154,14 @@ static void percpu_ref_call_confirm_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu) >> >> data->confirm_switch(ref); >> data->confirm_switch = NULL; >> - wake_up_all(&percpu_ref_switch_waitq); >> >> if (!data->allow_reinit) >> __percpu_ref_exit(ref); >> >> /* drop ref from percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic() */ >> percpu_ref_put(ref); >> + >> + wake_up_all(&percpu_ref_switch_waitq); > > The interface, at least originally, doesn't give any guarantee over whether > there's gonna be a residual reference on it or not. There's nothing > necessarily wrong with guaranteeing that but it's rather unusual and given > that putting the base ref in a percpu_ref is a special "kill" operation and > a ref in percpu mode always returns %false on is_zero(), I'm not quite sure > how such semantics would be useful. Do you care to explain the use case with > concrete examples?
There are currently two users of percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_sync(), and both are used in the example, one is mddev->writes_pending in driver/md/md.c and the other is q->q_usage_counter in block/blk-pm.c.
The former discards the initial reference count after percpu_ref_init(), and the latter kills the initial reference count(by calling percpu_ref_kill() in blk_freeze_queue_start()) before percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_sync(). Looks like they all expect percpu_ref to be stable when percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_sync() returns.
> > Also, the proposed patch is racy. There's nothing preventing > percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_sync() from waking up early between > confirm_switch clearing and the wake_up_all, so the above change doesn't > guarantee what it tries to guarantee. For that, you'd have to move > confirm_switch clearing *after* percpu_ref_put() but then, you'd be > accessing the ref after its final ref is put which can lead to > use-after-free. >
Oh sorry, it is my bad missing.
> In fact, the whole premise seems wrong. The switching needs a reference to > the percpu_ref because it is accessing it asynchronously. The switching side > doesn't know when the ref is gonna go away once it puts its reference and > thus can't signal that they're done after putting their reference. > > We *can* make that work by putting the whole thing in its own critical > section so that we can make confirm_switch clearing atomic with the possibly > final put, but that's gonna add some complexity and begs the question why > we'd need such a thing.
How about moving the last percpu_ref_put() outside of the percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_rcu() in sync mode like below? But this may not be elegant.
diff --git a/include/linux/percpu-refcount.h b/include/linux/percpu-refcount.h index d73a1c08c3e3..07f92e7e3e19 100644 --- a/include/linux/percpu-refcount.h +++ b/include/linux/percpu-refcount.h @@ -98,6 +98,7 @@ struct percpu_ref_data { percpu_ref_func_t *confirm_switch; bool force_atomic:1; bool allow_reinit:1; + bool sync; struct rcu_head rcu; struct percpu_ref *ref; }; @@ -123,7 +124,8 @@ int __must_check percpu_ref_init(struct percpu_ref *ref, gfp_t gfp); void percpu_ref_exit(struct percpu_ref *ref); void percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic(struct percpu_ref *ref, - percpu_ref_func_t *confirm_switch); + percpu_ref_func_t *confirm_switch, + bool sync); void percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_sync(struct percpu_ref *ref); void percpu_ref_switch_to_percpu(struct percpu_ref *ref); void percpu_ref_kill_and_confirm(struct percpu_ref *ref, diff --git a/lib/percpu-refcount.c b/lib/percpu-refcount.c index af9302141bcf..2a9d777bcf35 100644 --- a/lib/percpu-refcount.c +++ b/lib/percpu-refcount.c @@ -99,6 +99,7 @@ int percpu_ref_init(struct percpu_ref *ref, percpu_ref_func_t *release, data->release = release; data->confirm_switch = NULL; data->ref = ref; + data->sync = false; ref->data = data; return 0; } @@ -146,21 +147,30 @@ void percpu_ref_exit(struct percpu_ref *ref) } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(percpu_ref_exit);
+static inline void percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_post(struct percpu_ref *ref) +{ + struct percpu_ref_data *data = ref->data; + + if (!data->allow_reinit) + __percpu_ref_exit(ref); + + /* drop ref from percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic() */ + percpu_ref_put(ref); +} + static void percpu_ref_call_confirm_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu) { struct percpu_ref_data *data = container_of(rcu, struct percpu_ref_data, rcu); struct percpu_ref *ref = data->ref; + bool need_put = !data->sync;
data->confirm_switch(ref); data->confirm_switch = NULL; wake_up_all(&percpu_ref_switch_waitq);
- if (!data->allow_reinit) - __percpu_ref_exit(ref); - - /* drop ref from percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic() */ - percpu_ref_put(ref); + if (need_put) + percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_post(ref); }
static void percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu) @@ -302,12 +312,14 @@ static void __percpu_ref_switch_mode(struct percpu_ref *ref, * switching to atomic mode, this function can be called from any context. */ void percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic(struct percpu_ref *ref, - percpu_ref_func_t *confirm_switch) + percpu_ref_func_t *confirm_switch, + bool sync) { unsigned long flags;
spin_lock_irqsave(&percpu_ref_switch_lock, flags);
+ ref->data->sync = sync; ref->data->force_atomic = true; __percpu_ref_switch_mode(ref, confirm_switch);
@@ -325,8 +337,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic); */ void percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_sync(struct percpu_ref *ref) { - percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic(ref, NULL); + percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic(ref, NULL, true); wait_event(percpu_ref_switch_waitq, !ref->data->confirm_switch); + percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_post(ref); } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_sync);
> Andrew, I don't think the patch as proposed makes much sense. Maybe it'd be > better to keep it out of the tree for the time being? > > Thanks. >
-- Thanks, Qi
| |