On 2023/4/4 14:01, Dave Chinner wrote:
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.
Before commit 5825bea05265("xfs: __percpu_counter_compare() inode count
debug too expensive").
I got issue as follows when do cpu online/offline test:
smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline
XFS: Assertion failed: percpu_counter_compare(&mp->m_ifree, 0) >= 0, file: fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c, line: 622
------------[ cut here ]------------
kernel BUG at fs/xfs/xfs_message.c:110!
invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN PTI
CPU: 3 PID: 25512 Comm: fsstress Not tainted 5.10.0-04288-gcb31bdc8c65d #8
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
RIP: 0010:assfail+0x77/0x8b fs/xfs/xfs_message.c:110
Code: 7f 10 84 d2 74 0c 48 c7 c7 0c dc e6 ab e8 e8 1e 52 fd 8a 1d 5e 04 5b 01 31 ff 89 de e8 e9 37 14 fd 84 db 74 07 e8 60 36 14 fd <0f> 0b e8 59 36 14 fd 0f 0b 5b 5d 41 5c 41 5d c3 cc cc cc cc e8 47
RSP: 0018:ffff88810a5df5c0 EFLAGS: 00010293
RAX: ffff88810f3a8000 RBX: 0000000000000201 RCX: ffffffffaa8bd7c0
RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000000000001
RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: ffff88810f3a8000 R09: ffffed103edf71cd
R10: ffff8881f6fb8e67 R11: ffffed103edf71cc R12: ffffffffab0108c0
R13: ffffffffab010220 R14: ffffffffffffffff R15: 0000000000000000
FS: 00007f8536e16b80(0000) GS:ffff8881f6f80000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 00005617e1115f44 CR3: 000000015873a005 CR4: 0000000000370ee0
DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
Call Trace:
xfs_trans_unreserve_and_mod_sb+0x833/0xca0 fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c:622
xlog_cil_commit+0x1169/0x29b0 fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c:1325
__xfs_trans_commit+0x2c0/0xe20 fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c:889
xfs_create_tmpfile+0x6a6/0x9a0 fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c:1320
xfs_rename_alloc_whiteout fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c:3193 [inline]
xfs_rename+0x58a/0x1e00 fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c:3245
xfs_vn_rename+0x28e/0x410 fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c:436
vfs_rename+0x10b5/0x1dd0 fs/namei.c:4329
do_renameat2+0xa19/0xb10 fs/namei.c:4474
__do_sys_renameat2 fs/namei.c:4512 [inline]
__se_sys_renameat2 fs/namei.c:4509 [inline]
__x64_sys_renameat2+0xe4/0x120 fs/namei.c:4509
do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40 arch/x86/entry/common.c:46
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x61/0xc6
RIP: 0033:0x7f853623d91d
I can reproduce above issue by injecting kernel latency to invalidate
the quick
judgment of “__percpu_counter_compare()”.
For quick judgment logic, the number of CPUs may have decreased before
calling
percpu_counter_cpu_dead() when concurrent with CPU offline. That leads to
calculation errors. For example:
Assumption:
(1) batch = 32
(2) The final count is 2
(3) The number of CPUs is 4
If the number of percpu variables on each CPU is as follows when CPU3 is
offline
cpu0 cpu1 cpu2 cpu3
31 31 31 31
fbc->count = -122
So at this point, add a check to determine if fbc is greater than 0
abs(count - rhs) = -122
batch * num_ online_ cpus() = 32 * 3 = 96
That is: abs (count rhs)>batch * num_online_cpus() conditions met. The
actual
value is 2, but the fact that count<0 returns -1 is the opposite.
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.
