Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 23 Sep 2022 16:43:03 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc:     Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Liu Song <liusong@linux.alibaba.com>,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH next] sbitmap: fix lockup while swapping
Message-ID: <20220923144303.fywkmgnkg6eken4x@quack3>
References: <aef9de29-e9f5-259a-f8be-12d1b734e72@google.com>
 <YyjdiKC0YYUkI+AI@kbusch-mbp>
 <f2d130d2-f3af-d09d-6fd7-10da28d26ba9@google.com>
 <20220921164012.s7lvklp2qk6occcg@quack3>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220921164012.s7lvklp2qk6occcg@quack3>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed 21-09-22 18:40:12, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 19-09-22 16:01:39, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Sep 2022, Keith Busch wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 02:10:51PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > > I have almost no grasp of all the possible sbitmap races, and their
> > > > consequences: but using the same !waitqueue_active() check as used
> > > > elsewhere, fixes the lockup and shows no adverse consequence for me.
> > > 
> > >  
> > > > Fixes: 4acb83417cad ("sbitmap: fix batched wait_cnt accounting")
> > > > Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > 
> > > >  lib/sbitmap.c |    2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > --- a/lib/sbitmap.c
> > > > +++ b/lib/sbitmap.c
> > > > @@ -620,7 +620,7 @@ static bool __sbq_wake_up(struct sbitmap
> > > >  		 * function again to wakeup a new batch on a different 'ws'.
> > > >  		 */
> > > >  		if (cur == 0)
> > > > -			return true;
> > > > +			return !waitqueue_active(&ws->wait);
> > > 
> > > If it's 0, that is supposed to mean another thread is about to make it not zero
> > > as well as increment the wakestate index. That should be happening after patch
> > > 48c033314f37 was included, at least.
> > 
> > I believe that the thread about to make wait_cnt not zero (and increment the
> > wakestate index) is precisely this interrupted thread: the backtrace shows
> > that it had just done its wakeups, so has not yet reached making wait_cnt
> > not zero; and I suppose that either its wakeups did not empty the waitqueue
> > completely, or another waiter got added as soon as it dropped the spinlock.

I was trying to wrap my head around this but I am failing to see how we
could have wait_cnt == 0 for long enough to cause any kind of stall let
alone a lockup in sbitmap_queue_wake_up() as you describe. I can understand
we have:

CPU1						CPU2
sbitmap_queue_wake_up()
  ws = sbq_wake_ptr(sbq);
  cur = atomic_read(&ws->wait_cnt);
  do {
	...
	wait_cnt = cur - sub;	/* this will be 0 */
  } while (!atomic_try_cmpxchg(&ws->wait_cnt, &cur, wait_cnt));
  ...
						/* Gets the same waitqueue */
						ws = sbq_wake_ptr(sbq);
						cur = atomic_read(&ws->wait_cnt);
						do {
							if (cur == 0)
								return true; /* loop */
  wake_up_nr(&ws->wait, wake_batch);
  smp_mb__before_atomic();
  sbq_index_atomic_inc(&sbq->wake_index);
  atomic_set(&ws->wait_cnt, wake_batch); /* This stops looping on CPU2 */

So until CPU1 reaches the atomic_set(), CPU2 can be looping. But how come
this takes so long that is causes a hang as you describe? Hum... So either
CPU1 takes really long to get to atomic_set():
- can CPU1 get preempted? Likely not at least in the context you show in
  your message
- can CPU1 spend so long in wake_up_nr()? Maybe the waitqueue lock is
  contended but still...

or CPU2 somehow sees cur==0 for longer than it should. The whole sequence
executed in a loop on CPU2 does not contain anything that would force CPU2
to refresh its cache and get new ws->wait_cnt value so we are at the mercy
of CPU cache coherency mechanisms to stage the write on CPU1 and propagate
it to other CPUs. But still I would not expect that to take significantly
long. Any other ideas?
 
								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR