Re: [PATCH 1/3] SUNRPC: Don't hold the transport lock across socket copy operations

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> On Aug 14, 2017, at 3:16 PM, Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Instead add a mechanism to ensure that the request doesn't disappear
> from underneath us while copying from the socket. We do this by
> preventing xprt_release() from freeing the XDR buffers until the
> flag RPC_TASK_MSG_RECV has been cleared from the request.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/sunrpc/sched.h |  2 ++
> include/linux/sunrpc/xprt.h  |  2 ++
> net/sunrpc/xprt.c            | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c        | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 4 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/include/linux/sunrpc/sched.h b/include/linux/sunrpc/sched.h
> index 15bc1cd6ee5c..e972d9e05426 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sunrpc/sched.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sunrpc/sched.h
> @@ -141,6 +141,8 @@ struct rpc_task_setup {
> #define RPC_TASK_ACTIVE		2
> #define RPC_TASK_MSG_XMIT	3
> #define RPC_TASK_MSG_XMIT_WAIT	4
> +#define RPC_TASK_MSG_RECV	5
> +#define RPC_TASK_MSG_RECV_WAIT	6
> 
> #define RPC_IS_RUNNING(t)	test_bit(RPC_TASK_RUNNING, &(t)->tk_runstate)
> #define rpc_set_running(t)	set_bit(RPC_TASK_RUNNING, &(t)->tk_runstate)
> diff --git a/include/linux/sunrpc/xprt.h b/include/linux/sunrpc/xprt.h
> index eab1c749e192..65b9e0224753 100644
> --- a/include/linux/sunrpc/xprt.h
> +++ b/include/linux/sunrpc/xprt.h
> @@ -372,6 +372,8 @@ void			xprt_write_space(struct rpc_xprt *xprt);
> void			xprt_adjust_cwnd(struct rpc_xprt *xprt, struct rpc_task *task, int result);
> struct rpc_rqst *	xprt_lookup_rqst(struct rpc_xprt *xprt, __be32 xid);
> void			xprt_complete_rqst(struct rpc_task *task, int copied);
> +void			xprt_pin_rqst(struct rpc_rqst *req);
> +void			xprt_unpin_rqst(struct rpc_rqst *req);
> void			xprt_release_rqst_cong(struct rpc_task *task);
> void			xprt_disconnect_done(struct rpc_xprt *xprt);
> void			xprt_force_disconnect(struct rpc_xprt *xprt);
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprt.c b/net/sunrpc/xprt.c
> index 788c1b6138c2..62c379865f7c 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/xprt.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprt.c
> @@ -844,6 +844,47 @@ struct rpc_rqst *xprt_lookup_rqst(struct rpc_xprt *xprt, __be32 xid)
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(xprt_lookup_rqst);
> 
> +/**
> + * xprt_pin_rqst - Pin a request on the transport receive list
> + * @req: Request to pin
> + *
> + * Caller must ensure this is atomic with the call to xprt_lookup_rqst()
> + * so should be holding the xprt transport lock.
> + */
> +void xprt_pin_rqst(struct rpc_rqst *req)
> +{
> +	set_bit(RPC_TASK_MSG_RECV, &req->rq_task->tk_runstate);
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * xprt_unpin_rqst - Unpin a request on the transport receive list
> + * @req: Request to pin
> + *
> + * Caller should be holding the xprt transport lock.
> + */
> +void xprt_unpin_rqst(struct rpc_rqst *req)
> +{
> +	struct rpc_task *task = req->rq_task;
> +
> +	clear_bit(RPC_TASK_MSG_RECV, &task->tk_runstate);
> +	if (test_bit(RPC_TASK_MSG_RECV_WAIT, &task->tk_runstate))
> +		wake_up_bit(&task->tk_runstate, RPC_TASK_MSG_RECV);
> +}
> +
> +static void xprt_wait_on_pinned_rqst(struct rpc_rqst *req)
> +__must_hold(&req->rq_xprt->transport_lock)
> +{
> +	struct rpc_task *task = req->rq_task;
> +	if (test_bit(RPC_TASK_MSG_RECV, &task->tk_runstate)) {
> +		spin_unlock_bh(&req->rq_xprt->transport_lock);
> +		set_bit(RPC_TASK_MSG_RECV_WAIT, &task->tk_runstate);
> +		wait_on_bit(&task->tk_runstate, RPC_TASK_MSG_RECV,
> +				TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> +		clear_bit(RPC_TASK_MSG_RECV_WAIT, &task->tk_runstate);
> +		spin_lock_bh(&req->rq_xprt->transport_lock);
> +	}
> +}
> +
> static void xprt_update_rtt(struct rpc_task *task)
> {
> 	struct rpc_rqst *req = task->tk_rqstp;
> @@ -1301,6 +1342,7 @@ void xprt_release(struct rpc_task *task)
> 		list_del(&req->rq_list);
> 	xprt->last_used = jiffies;
> 	xprt_schedule_autodisconnect(xprt);
> +	xprt_wait_on_pinned_rqst(req);
> 	spin_unlock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);

Is it OK to call wait_on_bit(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) while holding
a BH spin lock? This could be prone to deadlock.


> 	if (req->rq_buffer)
> 		xprt->ops->buf_free(task);
> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c b/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c
> index 4f154d388748..222993fbaf99 100644
> --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c
> +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c
> @@ -973,6 +973,8 @@ static void xs_local_data_read_skb(struct rpc_xprt *xprt,
> 	rovr = xprt_lookup_rqst(xprt, *xp);
> 	if (!rovr)
> 		goto out_unlock;
> +	xprt_pin_rqst(rovr);
> +	spin_unlock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
> 	task = rovr->rq_task;
> 
> 	copied = rovr->rq_private_buf.buflen;
> @@ -981,11 +983,14 @@ static void xs_local_data_read_skb(struct rpc_xprt *xprt,
> 
> 	if (xs_local_copy_to_xdr(&rovr->rq_private_buf, skb)) {
> 		dprintk("RPC:       sk_buff copy failed\n");
> -		goto out_unlock;
> +		spin_lock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
> +		goto out_unpin;
> 	}
> 
> +	spin_lock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
> 	xprt_complete_rqst(task, copied);
> -
> +out_unpin:
> +	xprt_unpin_rqst(rovr);
>  out_unlock:
> 	spin_unlock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
> }
> @@ -1054,6 +1059,8 @@ static void xs_udp_data_read_skb(struct rpc_xprt *xprt,
> 	rovr = xprt_lookup_rqst(xprt, *xp);
> 	if (!rovr)
> 		goto out_unlock;
> +	xprt_pin_rqst(rovr);
> +	spin_unlock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
> 	task = rovr->rq_task;
> 
> 	if ((copied = rovr->rq_private_buf.buflen) > repsize)
> @@ -1062,14 +1069,17 @@ static void xs_udp_data_read_skb(struct rpc_xprt *xprt,
> 	/* Suck it into the iovec, verify checksum if not done by hw. */
> 	if (csum_partial_copy_to_xdr(&rovr->rq_private_buf, skb)) {
> 		__UDPX_INC_STATS(sk, UDP_MIB_INERRORS);
> -		goto out_unlock;
> +		spin_lock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
> +		goto out_unpin;
> 	}
> 
> 	__UDPX_INC_STATS(sk, UDP_MIB_INDATAGRAMS);
> 
> +	spin_lock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
> 	xprt_adjust_cwnd(xprt, task, copied);
> 	xprt_complete_rqst(task, copied);
> -
> +out_unpin:
> +	xprt_unpin_rqst(rovr);
>  out_unlock:
> 	spin_unlock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
> }
> @@ -1351,12 +1361,15 @@ static inline int xs_tcp_read_reply(struct rpc_xprt *xprt,
> 		spin_unlock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
> 		return -1;
> 	}
> +	xprt_pin_rqst(req);
> +	spin_unlock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
> 
> 	xs_tcp_read_common(xprt, desc, req);
> 
> +	spin_lock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
> 	if (!(transport->tcp_flags & TCP_RCV_COPY_DATA))
> 		xprt_complete_rqst(req->rq_task, transport->tcp_copied);
> -
> +	xprt_unpin_rqst(req);
> 	spin_unlock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
> 	return 0;
> }
> @@ -1385,12 +1398,16 @@ static int xs_tcp_read_callback(struct rpc_xprt *xprt,
> 		xprt_force_disconnect(xprt);
> 		return -1;
> 	}
> +	xprt_pin_rqst(req);
> +	spin_unlock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
> 
> 	dprintk("RPC:       read callback  XID %08x\n", ntohl(req->rq_xid));
> 	xs_tcp_read_common(xprt, desc, req);
> 
> +	spin_lock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
> 	if (!(transport->tcp_flags & TCP_RCV_COPY_DATA))
> 		xprt_complete_bc_request(req, transport->tcp_copied);
> +	xprt_unpin_rqst(req);
> 	spin_unlock_bh(&xprt->transport_lock);
> 
> 	return 0;
> -- 
> 2.13.5
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
Chuck Lever



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux USB Development]     [Linux Media Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Info]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux