On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 02:58:36PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 09:55:34AM -0400, Dan Schatzberg wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 07, 2021 at 11:19:14AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 06, 2021 at 09:55:36AM -0400, Dan Schatzberg wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 06:26:07PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > > }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + spin_lock(lock);
> > > > > list_add_tail(&cmd->list_entry, cmd_list);
> > > > > + spin_unlock(lock);
> > > > > queue_work(lo->workqueue, work);
> > > > > - spin_unlock(&lo->lo_work_lock);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > static void loop_update_rotational(struct loop_device *lo)
> > > > > @@ -1131,20 +1159,18 @@ static void loop_set_timer(struct loop_device *lo)
> > > > >
> > > > > static void __loop_free_idle_workers(struct loop_device *lo, bool force)
> > > > > {
> > > > > - struct loop_worker *pos, *worker;
> > > > > + struct loop_worker *worker;
> > > > > + unsigned long id;
> > > > >
> > > > > spin_lock(&lo->lo_work_lock);
> > > > > - list_for_each_entry_safe(worker, pos, &lo->idle_worker_list,
> > > > > - idle_list) {
> > > > > + xa_for_each(&lo->workers, id, worker) {
> > > > > if (!force && time_is_after_jiffies(worker->last_ran_at +
> > > > > LOOP_IDLE_WORKER_TIMEOUT))
> > > > > break;
> > > > > - list_del(&worker->idle_list);
> > > > > - xa_erase(&lo->workers, worker->blkcg_css->id);
> > > > > - css_put(worker->blkcg_css);
> > > > > - kfree(worker);
> > > > > + if (refcount_dec_and_test(&worker->refcnt))
> > > > > + loop_release_worker(worker);
> > > >
> > > > This one is puzzling to me. Can't you hit this refcount decrement
> > > > superfluously each time the loop timer fires?
> > >
> > > Not sure I get your point.
> > >
> > > As I mentioned above, this one is the counter pair of INIT reference,
> > > but one new lo_cmd may just grab it when queueing rq before erasing the
> > > worker from xarray, so we can't release worker here until the command is
> > > completed.
> >
> > Suppose at this point there's still an outstanding loop_cmd to be
> > serviced for this worker. The refcount_dec_and_test should decrement
> > the refcount and then fail the conditional, not calling
> > loop_release_worker. What happens if __loop_free_idle_workers fires
> > again before the loop_cmd is processed? Won't you decrement the
> > refcount again, and then end up calling loop_release_worker before the
> > loop_cmd is processed?
>
> Good catch!
>
> The following one line change should avoid the issue:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
> index 146eaa03629b..3cd51bddfec9 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/loop.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
> @@ -980,7 +980,6 @@ static struct loop_worker *loop_alloc_or_get_worker(struct loop_device *lo,
>
> static void loop_release_worker(struct loop_worker *worker)
> {
> - xa_erase(&worker->lo->workers, worker->blkcg_css->id);
> css_put(worker->blkcg_css);
> kfree(worker);
> }
> @@ -1167,6 +1166,7 @@ static void __loop_free_idle_workers(struct loop_device *lo, bool force)
> if (!force && time_is_after_jiffies(worker->last_ran_at +
> LOOP_IDLE_WORKER_TIMEOUT))
> break;
> + xa_erase(&worker->lo->workers, worker->blkcg_css->id);
> if (refcount_dec_and_test(&worker->refcnt))
> loop_release_worker(worker);
> }
Yeah, I think this resolves the issue. You could end up repeatedly
allocating workers for the same blkcg in the event that you're keeping
the worker busy for the entire LOOP_IDLE_WORKER_TIMEOUT (since it only
updates the last_ran_at when idle). You may want to add a racy check
if the refcount is > 1 to avoid that.
I think there might be a separate issue with the locking here though -
you acquire the lo->lo_work_lock in __loop_free_idle_workers and then
check worker->last_ran_at for each worker. However you only protect
the write to worker->last_ran_at (in loop_process_work) with the
worker->lock which I think means there's a potential data race on
worker->last_ran_at.
