On Fri, Feb 27 2015 at 5:39pm -0500,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 27 2015 at 2:09pm -0500,
> > Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > >
> > > > Since it's apparently possible that the queue limits for discard and
> > > > write same can change while the upper level command is being sliced
> > > > and diced, fix up both of them (a) to reject IO if the special command
> > > > is unsupported at the start of the function and (b) read the limits
> > > > once and let the commands error out on their own if the status happens
> > > > to change.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > > + unsigned int special_cmd_max_sectors;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* Reject unsupported discard and write same requests */
> > > > + if (rw & REQ_DISCARD)
> > > > + special_cmd_max_sectors = q->limits.max_discard_sectors;
> > > > + else if (rw & REQ_WRITE_SAME)
> > > > + special_cmd_max_sectors = q->limits.max_write_same_sectors;
> > > > + if ((rw & (REQ_DISCARD | REQ_WRITE_SAME)) &&
> > > > + special_cmd_max_sectors == 0) {
> > >
> > > That results in uninitialized variable warning (although the warning is
> > > false positive). We need the macro uninitialized_var to suppress the
> > > warning.
> > >
> > > It's better to use ACCESS_ONCE on variables that may be changing so that
> > > the compiler doesn't load them multiple times.
> >
> > I dropped the use of ACCESS_ONCE. We access queue_limits all over block
> > related code. If the performance is quantifiable then all accesses
> > should be updated. Until then, I'm maintaining status-quo.
>
> ACCESS_ONCE is not there because of performance.
Yes, clearly not, I've had "performance" on the brain lately (see
request-based DM merge threads) ;)
I understand this is about correctness concerns.
> Without ACCESS_ONCE, the
> compiler may reload the variable multple times and reintroduce the bug
> that we are trying to fix.
>
>
> See this piece of code.
>
> special_cmd_max_sectors = q->limits.max_discard_sectors;
> if (special_cmd_max_sectors == 0) {
> dec_count(io, region, -EOPNOTSUPP);
> return;
> }
> ....
> num_sectors = special_cmd_max_sectors;
> remaining -= num_sectors;
>
>
> At first sight, it seems that the variable num_sectors can't be zero. But
> in fact, it can. The compiler may eliminate the variable
> special_cmd_max_sectors and translate the code into this:
>
> if (q->limits.max_discard_sectors == 0) {
> dec_count(io, region, -EOPNOTSUPP);
> return;
> }
> ....
> num_sectors = q->limits.max_discard_sectors;
> remaining -= num_sectors;
>
> - and now, if we have the same bug that we were trying to fix.
>
> That's why we need ACCESS_ONCE - to prevent the compiler from doing this
> transformation.
Do we have proof that a gcc from the last 5-10 years actually does crap
like this? Again, if so and that compiler is likely to be in
production, this isn't a concern localized to dm-io. It would be a
rampant problem in the kernel!
> It's true that the kernel misses the ACCESS_ONCE at many places where it
> should be. But the fact that there is a lot of broken code doesn't mean
> that we should write broken code too.
I'm saying in practice this type of code isn't broken (and that gcc
isn't doing this.. but I have no _real_ proof other than all the other
places we access structures whose members may change). ACCESS_ONCE() is
one of the biggest warts in all of the kernel code -- and you happen to
be very persistent about adding them. I appreciate that it is safer to
have them then not but I'm at the point where I'm starting to question
certain uses of ACCESS_ONCE() -- this one just feels unnecessary.
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
