forked from luck/tmp_suning_uos_patched
svcrpc: fix unlikely races preventing queueing of sockets
In the rpc server, When something happens that might be reason to wake up a thread to do something, what we do is - modify xpt_flags, sk_sock->flags, xpt_reserved, or xpt_nr_rqsts to indicate the new situation - call svc_xprt_enqueue() to decide whether to wake up a thread. svc_xprt_enqueue may require multiple conditions to be true before queueing up a thread to handle the xprt. In the SMP case, one of the other CPU's may have set another required condition, and in that case, although both CPUs run svc_xprt_enqueue(), it's possible that neither call sees the writes done by the other CPU in time, and neither one recognizes that all the required conditions have been set. A socket could therefore be ignored indefinitely. Add memory barries to ensure that any svc_xprt_enqueue() call will always see the conditions changed by other CPUs before deciding to ignore a socket. I've never seen this race reported. In the unlikely event it happens, another event will usually come along and the problem will fix itself. So I don't think this is worth backporting to stable. Chuck tried this patch and said "I don't see any performance regressions, but my server has only a single last-level CPU cache." Tested-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com> Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
66c898caef
commit
95503d295a
|
@ -357,6 +357,7 @@ static void svc_xprt_release_slot(struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
|
|||
struct svc_xprt *xprt = rqstp->rq_xprt;
|
||||
if (test_and_clear_bit(RQ_DATA, &rqstp->rq_flags)) {
|
||||
atomic_dec(&xprt->xpt_nr_rqsts);
|
||||
smp_wmb(); /* See smp_rmb() in svc_xprt_ready() */
|
||||
svc_xprt_enqueue(xprt);
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
@ -365,6 +366,15 @@ static bool svc_xprt_ready(struct svc_xprt *xprt)
|
|||
{
|
||||
unsigned long xpt_flags;
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* If another cpu has recently updated xpt_flags,
|
||||
* sk_sock->flags, xpt_reserved, or xpt_nr_rqsts, we need to
|
||||
* know about it; otherwise it's possible that both that cpu and
|
||||
* this one could call svc_xprt_enqueue() without either
|
||||
* svc_xprt_enqueue() recognizing that the conditions below
|
||||
* are satisfied, and we could stall indefinitely:
|
||||
*/
|
||||
smp_rmb();
|
||||
xpt_flags = READ_ONCE(xprt->xpt_flags);
|
||||
|
||||
if (xpt_flags & (BIT(XPT_CONN) | BIT(XPT_CLOSE)))
|
||||
|
@ -479,7 +489,7 @@ void svc_reserve(struct svc_rqst *rqstp, int space)
|
|||
if (xprt && space < rqstp->rq_reserved) {
|
||||
atomic_sub((rqstp->rq_reserved - space), &xprt->xpt_reserved);
|
||||
rqstp->rq_reserved = space;
|
||||
|
||||
smp_wmb(); /* See smp_rmb() in svc_xprt_ready() */
|
||||
svc_xprt_enqueue(xprt);
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -314,8 +314,9 @@ static void svc_rdma_wc_receive(struct ib_cq *cq, struct ib_wc *wc)
|
|||
|
||||
spin_lock(&rdma->sc_rq_dto_lock);
|
||||
list_add_tail(&ctxt->rc_list, &rdma->sc_rq_dto_q);
|
||||
spin_unlock(&rdma->sc_rq_dto_lock);
|
||||
/* Note the unlock pairs with the smp_rmb in svc_xprt_ready: */
|
||||
set_bit(XPT_DATA, &rdma->sc_xprt.xpt_flags);
|
||||
spin_unlock(&rdma->sc_rq_dto_lock);
|
||||
if (!test_bit(RDMAXPRT_CONN_PENDING, &rdma->sc_flags))
|
||||
svc_xprt_enqueue(&rdma->sc_xprt);
|
||||
goto out;
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -287,9 +287,10 @@ static void svc_rdma_wc_read_done(struct ib_cq *cq, struct ib_wc *wc)
|
|||
spin_lock(&rdma->sc_rq_dto_lock);
|
||||
list_add_tail(&info->ri_readctxt->rc_list,
|
||||
&rdma->sc_read_complete_q);
|
||||
/* Note the unlock pairs with the smp_rmb in svc_xprt_ready: */
|
||||
set_bit(XPT_DATA, &rdma->sc_xprt.xpt_flags);
|
||||
spin_unlock(&rdma->sc_rq_dto_lock);
|
||||
|
||||
set_bit(XPT_DATA, &rdma->sc_xprt.xpt_flags);
|
||||
svc_xprt_enqueue(&rdma->sc_xprt);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user