On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 09:42:06AM +0800, Ye Bin wrote:
> From: Ye Bin <yebin10@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> In commit 8b57b11cca88 ("pcpcntrs: fix dying cpu summation race") a race
> condition between a cpu dying and percpu_counter_sum() iterating online CPUs
> was identified.
> Acctually, there's the same race condition between a cpu dying and
> __percpu_counter_compare(). Here, use 'num_online_cpus()' for quick judgment.
> But 'num_online_cpus()' will be decreased before call 'percpu_counter_cpu_dead()',
> then maybe return incorrect result.
> To solve above issue, also need to add dying CPUs count when do quick judgment
> in __percpu_counter_compare().
>
> Signed-off-by: Ye Bin <yebin10@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> lib/percpu_counter.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/percpu_counter.c b/lib/percpu_counter.c
> index 5004463c4f9f..399840cb0012 100644
> --- a/lib/percpu_counter.c
> +++ b/lib/percpu_counter.c
> @@ -227,6 +227,15 @@ static int percpu_counter_cpu_dead(unsigned int cpu)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static __always_inline unsigned int num_count_cpus(void)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
> + return (num_online_cpus() + num_dying_cpus());
> +#else
> + return num_online_cpus();
> +#endif
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Compare counter against given value.
> * Return 1 if greater, 0 if equal and -1 if less
> @@ -237,7 +246,7 @@ int __percpu_counter_compare(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 rhs, s32 batch)
>
> count = percpu_counter_read(fbc);
> /* Check to see if rough count will be sufficient for comparison */
> - if (abs(count - rhs) > (batch * num_online_cpus())) {
> + if (abs(count - rhs) > (batch * num_count_cpus())) {
What problem is this actually fixing? You haven't explained how the
problem you are fixing manifests in the commit message or the cover
letter.
We generally don't care about the accuracy of the comparison here
because we've used percpu_counter_read() which is completely racy
against on-going updates. e.g. we can get preempted between
percpu_counter_read() and the check and so the value can be
completely wrong by the time we actually check it. Hence checking
online vs online+dying really doesn't fix any of the common race
conditions that occur here.
Even if we fall through to using percpu_counter_sum() for the
comparison value, that is still not accurate in the face of racing
updates to the counter because percpu_counter_sum only prevents
the percpu counter from being folded back into the global sum
while it is running. The comparison is still not precise or accurate.
IOWs, the result of this whole function is not guaranteed to be
precise or accurate; percpu counters cannot ever be relied on for
exact threshold detection unless there is some form of external
global counter synchronisation being used for those comparisons
(e.g. a global spinlock held around all the percpu_counter_add()
modifications as well as the __percpu_counter_compare() call).
That's always been the issue with unsynchronised percpu counters -
cpus dying just don't matter here because there are many other more
common race conditions that prevent accurate, race free comparison
of per-cpu counters.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx
