mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
To: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>,
	Anish Kumar <anish198519851985@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] irq_work: Fix racy check on work pending flag
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:17:08 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1352841428.18025.45.camel@gandalf.local.home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1351877716-28911-2-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com>

On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 18:35 +0100, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> Work claiming wants to be SMP-safe.
> 
> And by the time we try to claim a work, if it is already executing
> concurrently on another CPU, we want to succeed the claiming and queue
> the work again because the other CPU may have missed the data we wanted
> to handle in our work if it's about to complete there.
> 
> This scenario is summarized below:
> 
>         CPU 1                                   CPU 2
>         -----                                   -----
>         (flags = 0)
>         cmpxchg(flags, 0, IRQ_WORK_FLAGS)
>         (flags = 3)
>         [...]
>         xchg(flags, IRQ_WORK_BUSY)
>         (flags = 2)
>         func()
>                                                 if (flags & IRQ_WORK_PENDING)
>                                                         (not true)
>                                                 cmpxchg(flags, flags, IRQ_WORK_FLAGS)
>                                                 (flags = 3)
>                                                 [...]
>         cmpxchg(flags, IRQ_WORK_BUSY, 0);
>         (fail, pending on CPU 2)
> 
> This state machine is synchronized using [cmp]xchg() on the flags.
> As such, the early IRQ_WORK_PENDING check in CPU 2 above is racy.
> By the time we check it, we may be dealing with a stale value because
> we aren't using an atomic accessor. As a result, CPU 2 may "see"
> that the work is still pending on another CPU while it may be
> actually completing the work function exection already, leaving
> our data unprocessed.
> 
> To fix this, we start by speculating about the value we wish to be
> in the work->flags but we only make any conclusion after the value
> returned by the cmpxchg() call that either claims the work or let
> the current owner handle the pending work for us.
> 
> Changelog-heavily-inspired-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
> Signed-off-by: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>

Acked-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>

-- Steve

> Cc: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
> Cc: Anish Kumar <anish198519851985@gmail.com>
> ---
>  kernel/irq_work.c |   16 +++++++++++-----
>  1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/irq_work.c b/kernel/irq_work.c
> index 57be1a6..64eddd5 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq_work.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq_work.c
> @@ -34,15 +34,21 @@ static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct llist_head, irq_work_list);
>   */
>  static bool irq_work_claim(struct irq_work *work)
>  {
> -	unsigned long flags, nflags;
> +	unsigned long flags, oflags, nflags;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Start with our best wish as a premise but only trust any
> +	 * flag value after cmpxchg() result.
> +	 */
> +	flags = work->flags & ~IRQ_WORK_PENDING;
>  	for (;;) {
> -		flags = work->flags;
> -		if (flags & IRQ_WORK_PENDING)
> -			return false;
>  		nflags = flags | IRQ_WORK_FLAGS;
> -		if (cmpxchg(&work->flags, flags, nflags) == flags)
> +		oflags = cmpxchg(&work->flags, flags, nflags);
> +		if (oflags == flags)
>  			break;
> +		if (oflags & IRQ_WORK_PENDING)
> +			return false;
> +		flags = oflags;
>  		cpu_relax();
>  	}
>  



  reply	other threads:[~2012-11-13 21:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-11-02 17:33 [PATCH 0/2] irq_work: A couple fixes v2 Frederic Weisbecker
2012-11-02 17:35 ` [PATCH 1/2] irq_work: Fix racy IRQ_WORK_BUSY flag setting Frederic Weisbecker
2012-11-02 17:35   ` [PATCH 2/2] irq_work: Fix racy check on work pending flag Frederic Weisbecker
2012-11-13 21:17     ` Steven Rostedt [this message]
2012-11-13 21:13   ` [PATCH 1/2] irq_work: Fix racy IRQ_WORK_BUSY flag setting Steven Rostedt

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1352841428.18025.45.camel@gandalf.local.home \
    --to=rostedt@goodmis.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=anish198519851985@gmail.com \
    --cc=fweisbec@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@kernel.org \
    --cc=paul.gortmaker@windriver.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®