Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752597AbWKBAJ3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Nov 2006 19:09:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752596AbWKBAJ3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Nov 2006 19:09:29 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:65000 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752597AbWKBAJ2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Nov 2006 19:09:28 -0500 Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 16:09:17 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Jeff Dike Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] UML - Fix I/O hang Message-Id: <20061101160917.ebc40069.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <200611011732.kA1HWfZt005499@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> References: <200611011732.kA1HWfZt005499@ccure.user-mode-linux.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.7 (GTK+ 2.8.6; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3241 Lines: 80 On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:32:41 -0500 Jeff Dike wrote: > This patch fixes a UML hang in which everything would just stop until > some I/O happened - a ping, someone whacking the keyboard - at which > point everything would start up again as though nothing had happened. > > The cause was gcc reordering some code which absolutely needed to be > executed in the order in the source. When unblock_signals switches > signals from off to on, it needs to see if any interrupts had happened > in the critical section. The interrupt handlers check signals_enabled - > if it is zero, then the handler adds a bit to the "pending" bitmask > and returns. unblock_signals checks this mask to see if any signals > need to be delivered. > > The crucial part is this: > signals_enabled = 1; > save_pending = pending; > if(save_pending == 0) > return; > pending = 0; > > In order to avoid an interrupt arriving between reading pending and > setting it to zero, in which case, the record of the interrupt would > be erased, signals are enabled. > > What happened was that gcc reordered this so that 'save_pending = pending' > came before 'signals_enabled = 1', creating a one-instruction window > within which an interrupt could arrive, set its bit in pending, and > have it be immediately erased. So you need a compiler barrier, not a memory barrier. > When the I/O workload is purely disk-based, the loss of a block device > interrupt stops the entire I/O system because the next block request > will wait for the current one to finish. Thus the system hangs until > something else causes some I/O to arrive, such as a network packet or > console input. > > The fix to this particular problem is a memory barrier between > enabling signals and reading the pending signal mask. An xchg would > also probably work. > > Looking over this code for similar problems led me to do a few more > things - > make signals_enabled and pending volatile so that they don't > get cached in registers > add an mb() to the return paths of block_signals and > unblock_signals so that the modification of signals_enabled doesn't > get shuffled into the caller in the event that these are inlined in > the future. > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Dike > > Index: linux-2.6.18-mm/arch/um/include/sysdep-i386/barrier.h > =================================================================== > --- /dev/null 1970-01-01 00:00:00.000000000 +0000 > +++ linux-2.6.18-mm/arch/um/include/sysdep-i386/barrier.h 2006-10-31 14:41:52.000000000 -0500 > @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ > +#ifndef __SYSDEP_I386_BARRIER_H > +#define __SYSDEP_I386_BARRIER_H > + > +/* Copied from include/asm-i386 for use by userspace. i386 has the option > + * of using mfence, but I'm just using this, which works everywhere, for now. > + */ > +#define mb() asm volatile("lock; addl $0,0(%esp)") That's a memory barrier, which is more expensive. This: #define barrier() __asm__ __volatile__("": : :"memory") should suffice? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/