Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 22:20:17 +0930 From: Benjamin Close <Benjamin.Close@clearchain.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: pjd@freebsd.org, attilio@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, kib@freebsd.org, kevinxlinuz@163.com Subject: Re: [BUG] I think sleepqueue need to be protected in sleepq_broadcast Message-ID: <48BFD989.6010809@clearchain.com> In-Reply-To: <200809021608.57542.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <200808230003.44081.jhb@freebsd.org> <48B6BC81.5060300@clearchain.com> <20080901.013117.74700691.Tor.Egge@cvsup.no.freebsd.org> <200809021608.57542.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote:
> On Sunday 31 August 2008 09:31:17 pm Tor Egge wrote:
>
>> sleepq_resume_thread() contains an ownership handover of sq if the resumed
>> thread is the last one blocked on the wait channel. After the handover, sq
>>
> is
>
>> no longer protected by the sleep queue chain lock and should no longer be
>> accessed by sleepq_broadcast().
>>
>> Normally, when sleepq_broadcast() incorrectly accesses sq after the
>>
> handover,
>
>> it will find the sq->sq_blocked queue to be empty, and the code appears to
>> work.
>>
>> If the last correctly woken thread manages to go to sleep again very quickly
>>
> on
>
>> another wait channel, sleepq_broadcast() might incorrectly determine that
>>
> the
>
>> sq->sq_blocked queue isn't empty, and start doing the wrong thing.
>>
>
> So disregard my earlier e-mail. Here is a simple fix for the sleepq case:
>
> Index: subr_sleepqueue.c
> ===================================================================
> --- subr_sleepqueue.c (revision 182679)
> +++ subr_sleepqueue.c (working copy)
> @@ -779,7 +779,7 @@
> sleepq_broadcast(void *wchan, int flags, int pri, int queue)
> {
> struct sleepqueue *sq;
> - struct thread *td;
> + struct thread *td, *tdn;
> int wakeup_swapper;
>
> CTR2(KTR_PROC, "sleepq_broadcast(%p, %d)", wchan, flags);
> @@ -793,8 +793,7 @@
>
> /* Resume all blocked threads on the sleep queue. */
> wakeup_swapper = 0;
> - while (!TAILQ_EMPTY(&sq->sq_blocked[queue])) {
> - td = TAILQ_FIRST(&sq->sq_blocked[queue]);
> + TAILQ_FOREACH_SAFE(td, &sq->sq_blocked[queue], td_slpq, tdn) {
> thread_lock(td);
> if (sleepq_resume_thread(sq, td, pri))
> wakeup_swapper = 1;
>
> This only uses 'sq' to fetch the head of the queue once up front. It won't
> use it again once it has started waking up threads.
>
>
>> A similar (but probably much more difficult to trigger) issue is present
>>
> with
>
>> regards to thread_lock() and turnstiles.
>>
>> The caller of thread_lock() might have performed sufficient locking to
>>
> ensure
>
>> that the thread to be locked doesn't go away, but any turnstile spin lock
>> pointed to by td->td_lock isn't protected. Making turnstiles type stable
>> (setting UMA_ZONE_NOFREE flag for turnstile_zone) should fix that issue.
>>
>
> Note that unlike the sleepq case, turnstiles are not made runnable until all
> of them are dequeued from the turnstile and assigned a new turnstile. Only
> after all that is settled are the threads made runnable in turnstile_unpend().
>
> However, that doesn't fix this specific race (though it means the turnstile
> code is not subject to the same exact race as the sleepq code above). Making
> turnstiles type-stable is indeed probably the only fix for this. :-/
>
>
I can confirm this patch fixes the repeatable panic which was causing:
panic: mutex sleepq chain (0xffffffff8102c460) not owned ....
type messages for me when DDB was enabled, deadlocks without it. It's
the first time I've been able run a complete zpool scrub in multiuser
mode in since 7.0 was released.
Tor, nice catch! Jb, thanks for the fix.
This also I believe solves amd64/124200
Cheers,
Benjamin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?48BFD989.6010809>