Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Message-ID: <60c4b8a3-e526-d51e-c880-cd14ce23d718@bytedance.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Apr 2022 12:16:49 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu_ref: call wake_up_all() after percpu_ref_put()
 completes
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Muchun Song <songmuchun@bytedance.com>, dennis@kernel.org,
        tj@kernel.org, cl@linux.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zhouchengming@bytedance.com
References: <20220407103335.36885-1-zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
 <Yk+kAUwxZx1JhxIu@FVFYT0MHHV2J.usts.net>
 <cffbad48-db3b-e99b-11b3-7956ed460fb2@bytedance.com>
 <20220407205419.f656419a8f4665a2dc781133@linux-foundation.org>
 <35195a61-d531-aeb2-5565-146e345f8bf6@bytedance.com>
 <20220407211018.875696691e4411a7b5c8f63f@linux-foundation.org>
 <d546cbce-b1d6-9499-3093-796cad7be9aa@bytedance.com>
In-Reply-To: <d546cbce-b1d6-9499-3093-796cad7be9aa@bytedance.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


On 2022/4/8 12:14 PM, Qi Zheng wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2022/4/8 12:10 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Fri, 8 Apr 2022 12:06:20 +0800 Qi Zheng 
>> <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are any users affected by this?  If so, I think a Fixes tag
>>>>>> is necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks all current users(blk_pre_runtime_suspend() and 
>>>>> set_in_sync()) are
>>>>> affected by this.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see that this patch has been merged into the mm tree, can Andrew 
>>>>> help
>>>>> me add the following Fixes tag?
>>>>
>>>> Andrew is helpful ;)
>>>>
>>>> Do you see reasons why we should backport this into -stable trees?
>>>> It's 8 years old, so my uninformed guess is "no"?
>>>
>>> Hmm, although the commit 490c79a65708 add wake_up_all(), it is no
>>> problem for the usage at that time, maybe the correct Fixes tag is the
>>> following:
>>>
>>> Fixes: 210f7cdcf088 ("percpu-refcount: support synchronous switch to
>>> atomic mode.")
>>>
>>> But in fact, there is no problem with it, but all current users expect
>>> the refcount is stable after percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_sync() returns.
>>>
>>> I have no idea as which Fixes tag to add.
>>
>> Well the solution to that problem is to add cc:stable and let Greg
>> figure it out ;)
>>
>> The more serious question is "should we backport this".  What is the
>> end-user-visible impact of the bug?  Do our users need the fix or not?
> 
> The impact on the current user is that it is possible to miss an 
> opportunity to reach 0 due to the case B in the commit message:

There may be performance issues, but should not cause serious bugs.

> 
> /* The value of &ref is unstable! */
> percpu_ref_is_zero(&ref)
>                          (B)percpu_ref_put(ref);
> 
> Thanks,
> Qi
> 
>>
> 

-- 
Thanks,
Qi