Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 12:08:20 -0400 From: Mark Johnston <markj@freebsd.org> To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@freebsd.org> Cc: src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r334708 - head/sys/kern Message-ID: <20180817160820.GA13168@raichu> In-Reply-To: <0b128417-7107-5090-e65a-afa94fd1aed6@FreeBSD.org> References: <201806061257.w56CvCwq089369@repo.freebsd.org> <20180606140311.GU2450@kib.kiev.ua> <20180608033242.GA54099@pesky> <CAHgpiFyOQf6B3oGFGMz3avXqrrP0i6Puy9HqLER1XG5xE67BeQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAGudoHENGpCxn_omxfaRLOAH5fP6qdFcmmqZ7He%2BpcC=-1HFKQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAHgpiFzMQjHfnQLQrWc86FSxB2veHZeAc44qmROkaJugpGoU=g@mail.gmail.com> <20180608173755.GJ2450@kib.kiev.ua> <20180608183010.GC65388@pesky> <20180608183732.GK2450@kib.kiev.ua> <0b128417-7107-5090-e65a-afa94fd1aed6@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 12:09:21PM -0700, Bryan Drewery wrote: > Did this issue get resolved? It's fixed by r337974. > On 6/8/2018 11:37 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 02:30:10PM -0400, Mark Johnston wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 08:37:55PM +0300, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > >>> On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 11:02:29PM -0700, Ryan Libby wrote: > >>>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:03 PM, Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> Checking it without any locks is perfectly valid in this case. It is done > >>>>> after v_holdcnt gets bumped from a non-zero value. So at that time it > >>>>> is at least two. Of course that result is stale as an arbitrary number of > >>>>> other threads could have bumped and dropped the ref past that point. > >>>>> The minimum value is 1 since we hold the ref. But this means the > >>>>> vnode must not be on the free list and that's what the assertion is > >>>>> verifying. > >>>>> > >>>>> The problem is indeed lack of ordering against the code clearing the > >>>>> flag for the case where 2 threads to vhold and one does the 0->1 > >>>>> transition. > >>>>> > >>>>> That said, the fence is required for the assertion to work. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Yeah, I agree with this logic. What I mean is that reordering between > >>>> v_holdcnt 0->1 and v_iflag is normally settled by the release and > >>>> acquisition of the vnode interlock, which we are supposed to hold for > >>>> v_*i*flag. A quick scan seems to show all of the checks of VI_FREE that > >>>> are not asserts do hold the vnode interlock. So, I'm just saying that I > >>>> don't think the possible reordering affects them. > >>> But do we know that only VI_FREE checks are affected ? > >>> > >>> My concern is that users of _vhold() rely on seeing up to date state of the > >>> vnode, and VI_FREE is only an example of the problem. Most likely, the > >>> code which fetched the vnode pointer before _vhold() call, should guarantee > >>> visibility. > >> > >> Wouldn't this be a problem only if we permit lockless accesses of vnode > >> state outside of _vhold() and other vnode subroutines? The current > >> protocol requires that the interlock be held, and this synchronizes with > >> code which performs 0->1 and 1->0 transitions of the hold count. If this > >> requirement is relaxed in the future, then fences would indeed be > >> needed. > > > > I do not claim that my concern is a real problem. I stated it as a > > thing to look at when deciding whether the fences should be added > > (unconditionally ?). > > > > If you argument is that the only current lock-less protocol for the > > struct vnode state is the v_holdcnt transitions for > 1, then I can > > agree with it. > > > > > -- > Regards, > Bryan Drewery >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20180817160820.GA13168>