On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 05:45:37PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:14:52AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 03:27:12PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 08:24:43PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > > In theory it is possible multiple concurrent threads will try to
> > > > kmod_umh_threads_get() and as such atomic_inc(&kmod_concurrent) at
> > > > the same time, therefore enabling a small time during which we've
> > > > bumped kmod_concurrent but have not really enabled work. By using
> > > > preemption we mitigate this a bit.
> > > >
> > > > Preemption is not needed when we kmod_umh_threads_put().
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > kernel/kmod.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/kernel/kmod.c b/kernel/kmod.c
> > > > index 563600fc9bb1..7ea11dbc7564 100644
> > > > --- a/kernel/kmod.c
> > > > +++ b/kernel/kmod.c
> > > > @@ -113,15 +113,35 @@ static int call_modprobe(char *module_name, int wait)
> > > >
> > > > static int kmod_umh_threads_get(void)
> > > > {
> > > > + int ret = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Disabling preemption makes sure that we are not rescheduled here
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Also preemption helps kmod_concurrent is not increased by mistake
> > > > + * for too long given in theory two concurrent threads could race on
> > > > + * atomic_inc() before we atomic_read() -- we know that's possible
> > > > + * and but we don't care, this is not used for object accounting and
> > > > + * is just a subjective threshold. The alternative is a lock.
> > > > + */
> > > > + preempt_disable();
> > > > atomic_inc(&kmod_concurrent);
> > > > if (atomic_read(&kmod_concurrent) <= max_modprobes)
> > >
> > > That is very "fancy" way to basically say:
> > >
> > > if (atomic_inc_return(&kmod_concurrent) <= max_modprobes)
> >
> > Do you mean to combine the atomic_inc() and atomic_read() in one as you noted
> > (as that is not a change in this patch), *or* that using a memory barrier here
> > with atomic_inc_return() should suffice to address the same and avoid an
> > explicit preemption enable / disable ?
>
> I am saying that atomic_inc_return() will avoid situation where you have
> more than one threads incrementing the counter and believing that they
> are [not] allowed to start modprobe.
>
> I have no idea why you think preempt_disable() would help here. It only
> ensures that current thread will not be preempted between the point
> where you update the counter and where you check the result. It does not
> stop interrupts nor does it affect other threads that might be updating
> the same counter.
The preemption was inspired by __module_get() and try_module_get(), was that
rather silly ?
Luis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
