Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752389Ab2JEDZE (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2012 23:25:04 -0400 Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:60983 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750843Ab2JEDZC (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2012 23:25:02 -0400 X-SecurityPolicyCheck: OK by SHieldMailChecker v1.7.4 Message-ID: <506E52E1.3090609@jp.fujitsu.com> Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 12:24:17 +0900 From: Yasuaki Ishimatsu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Srivatsa S. Bhat" CC: Andrew Morton , Jiri Kosina , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , "Paul E. McKenney" , Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , "Paul E. McKenney" , Josh Triplett , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] CPU hotplug, debug: Detect imbalance between get_online_cpus() and put_online_cpus() References: <20121002170149.GC2465@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20121002233138.GD2465@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20121003001530.GF2465@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <506C2E02.9080804@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <506C3535.3070401@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20121003141311.09fb3ffc.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <506D29A7.1000805@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <506D29A7.1000805@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 5092 Lines: 132 2012/10/04 15:16, Srivatsa S. Bhat wrote: > On 10/04/2012 02:43 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: >> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 18:23:09 +0530 >> "Srivatsa S. Bhat" wrote: >> >>> The synchronization between CPU hotplug readers and writers is achieved by >>> means of refcounting, safe-guarded by the cpu_hotplug.lock. >>> >>> get_online_cpus() increments the refcount, whereas put_online_cpus() decrements >>> it. If we ever hit an imbalance between the two, we end up compromising the >>> guarantees of the hotplug synchronization i.e, for example, an extra call to >>> put_online_cpus() can end up allowing a hotplug reader to execute concurrently with >>> a hotplug writer. So, add a BUG_ON() in put_online_cpus() to detect such cases >>> where the refcount can go negative. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat >>> --- >>> >>> kernel/cpu.c | 1 + >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c >>> index f560598..00d29bc 100644 >>> --- a/kernel/cpu.c >>> +++ b/kernel/cpu.c >>> @@ -80,6 +80,7 @@ void put_online_cpus(void) >>> if (cpu_hotplug.active_writer == current) >>> return; >>> mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock); >>> + BUG_ON(cpu_hotplug.refcount == 0); >>> if (!--cpu_hotplug.refcount && unlikely(cpu_hotplug.active_writer)) >>> wake_up_process(cpu_hotplug.active_writer); >>> mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock); >> >> I think calling BUG() here is a bit harsh. We should only do that if >> there's a risk to proceeding: a risk of data loss, a reduced ability to >> analyse the underlying bug, etc. >> >> But a cpu-hotplug locking imbalance is a really really really minor >> problem! So how about we emit a warning then try to fix things up? > > That would be better indeed, thanks! > >> This should increase the chance that the machine will keep running and >> so will increase the chance that a user will be able to report the bug >> to us. >> > > Yep, sounds good. > >> >> --- a/kernel/cpu.c~cpu-hotplug-debug-detect-imbalance-between-get_online_cpus-and-put_online_cpus-fix >> +++ a/kernel/cpu.c >> @@ -80,9 +80,12 @@ void put_online_cpus(void) >> if (cpu_hotplug.active_writer == current) >> return; >> mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock); >> - BUG_ON(cpu_hotplug.refcount == 0); >> - if (!--cpu_hotplug.refcount && unlikely(cpu_hotplug.active_writer)) >> - wake_up_process(cpu_hotplug.active_writer); >> + if (!--cpu_hotplug.refcount) { > > This won't catch it. We'll enter this 'if' condition only when cpu_hotplug.refcount was > decremented to zero. We'll miss out the case when it went negative (which we intended to detect). > >> + if (WARN_ON(cpu_hotplug.refcount == -1)) >> + cpu_hotplug.refcount++; /* try to fix things up */ >> + if (unlikely(cpu_hotplug.active_writer)) >> + wake_up_process(cpu_hotplug.active_writer); >> + } >> mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock); >> >> } > > So how about something like below: > > ------------------------------------------------------> > > From: Srivatsa S. Bhat > Subject: [PATCH] CPU hotplug, debug: Detect imbalance between get_online_cpus() and put_online_cpus() > > The synchronization between CPU hotplug readers and writers is achieved by > means of refcounting, safe-guarded by the cpu_hotplug.lock. > > get_online_cpus() increments the refcount, whereas put_online_cpus() decrements > it. If we ever hit an imbalance between the two, we end up compromising the > guarantees of the hotplug synchronization i.e, for example, an extra call to > put_online_cpus() can end up allowing a hotplug reader to execute concurrently with > a hotplug writer. So, add a WARN_ON() in put_online_cpus() to detect such cases > where the refcount can go negative, and also attempt to fix it up, so that we can > continue to run. > > Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat > --- Looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Yasuaki Ishimatsu > > kernel/cpu.c | 4 ++++ > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/kernel/cpu.c b/kernel/cpu.c > index f560598..42bd331 100644 > --- a/kernel/cpu.c > +++ b/kernel/cpu.c > @@ -80,6 +80,10 @@ void put_online_cpus(void) > if (cpu_hotplug.active_writer == current) > return; > mutex_lock(&cpu_hotplug.lock); > + > + if (WARN_ON(!cpu_hotplug.refcount)) > + cpu_hotplug.refcount++; /* try to fix things up */ > + > if (!--cpu_hotplug.refcount && unlikely(cpu_hotplug.active_writer)) > wake_up_process(cpu_hotplug.active_writer); > mutex_unlock(&cpu_hotplug.lock); > > > -- > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in > the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . > Don't email: email@kvack.org > -- 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/