From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61EBCC6FD1D for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2023 06:40:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 49C306B0071; Tue, 4 Apr 2023 02:40:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 44C896B0074; Tue, 4 Apr 2023 02:40:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 314C26B0075; Tue, 4 Apr 2023 02:40:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0013.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.13]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DD886B0071 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2023 02:40:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin13.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA171AC056 for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2023 06:40:35 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80642760030.13.9AC0A56 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (szxga02-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.188]) by imf30.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263548000F for ; Tue, 4 Apr 2023 06:40:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf30.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass (imf30.hostedemail.com: domain of yebin10@huawei.com designates 45.249.212.188 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=yebin10@huawei.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1680590434; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=hMFqEZUSRyDM/Bx2hEoI6UNvO5kG4ISDLD93NPAyPQI=; b=I8OED1Z4bAQVTfaaHdX8ir7rKBfMqBMSVc1G2vBfCAKuBDTz119vsQ2UfrZdPimor/75e6 Ak5eZuRKe0ySaRtbSeJJBBYlc0LdpsoKB6YpvIl+EAlyhCw74H1oaS70HYctTAj7wuSRtX JdyhQcXUwaiqH634I/+BoKCukOtd3yI= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf30.hostedemail.com; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass (imf30.hostedemail.com: domain of yebin10@huawei.com designates 45.249.212.188 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=yebin10@huawei.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1680590434; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=zok/1vBHZ4Lup/8Ythmp7GITI4pBjT5RT6jZHyXnXyyu+Ees2VqMgnEKcasjjw2FXYtSVG S0RkNORyuVkfU9xTjfS6FmNq/VmsWu4NyKiZPcqR8MYIFBPdHZcdraLqGLICbxtVlnh7zN pKbOo0VHKCiojoHWDjSJumSubkAA9vA= Received: from canpemm500010.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.57]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4PrJ3p4qt6zKwRX; Tue, 4 Apr 2023 14:37:58 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.178.185] (10.174.178.185) by canpemm500010.china.huawei.com (7.192.105.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.23; Tue, 4 Apr 2023 14:40:26 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] lib/percpu_counter: fix dying cpu compare race To: Dave Chinner , Ye Bin References: <20230404014206.3752945-1-yebin@huaweicloud.com> <20230404014206.3752945-3-yebin@huaweicloud.com> CC: , , , , , , , From: "yebin (H)" Message-ID: <642BC659.7000007@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2023 14:40:25 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.174.178.185] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.180) To canpemm500010.china.huawei.com (7.192.105.118) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam02 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 263548000F X-Stat-Signature: pfjus3kcko177nhdzmdqrn6z39z6hi9b X-HE-Tag: 1680590431-702115 X-HE-Meta: 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 mSkCAa3n rmtI9KIVoz/E75oBOyTT3V2grr7CBZAps30A2v2rdMdGWl+1XvD8hxj6wE6Hr0UQNwKUePtINNRxcZnFaxfkfpsXEuEF8qMDfeZK1adNQM4uXB8q6J7yK5q0+SgHQ4Rr6ZoaZMBCsQAPbRE1Ue31pcPO/0Mh7Rkd6GgRZD9JrksKEBZb5D0Nrpc/E6Iw2cav4uyUiM1jLyKXf1erZnBW6SHbt0/kU9GYfGmj/6xIf3InE7dzBA1u38yFoMeLuHr0kJ4N+n1PCcfIJleCyGsDWdr5I6DWGjwwP6uHDBqqoIryzSIi/pvYJ23C8s0S5FaUEImqGx3whf6v0tgoMqK1/eGAb5tETDNm3P1zMBQajzThQn5DRF6v8j4pIHIlhQ6Xq+OE3z6wXAtbzL5pgYbMYOgWLaw== X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 2023/4/4 14:01, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 09:42:06AM +0800, Ye Bin wrote: >> From: Ye Bin >> >> In commit 8b57b11cca88 ("pcpcntrs: fix dying cpu summation race") a race >> condition between a cpu dying and percpu_counter_sum() iterating online CPUs >> was identified. >> Acctually, there's the same race condition between a cpu dying and >> __percpu_counter_compare(). Here, use 'num_online_cpus()' for quick judgment. >> But 'num_online_cpus()' will be decreased before call 'percpu_counter_cpu_dead()', >> then maybe return incorrect result. >> To solve above issue, also need to add dying CPUs count when do quick judgment >> in __percpu_counter_compare(). >> >> Signed-off-by: Ye Bin >> --- >> lib/percpu_counter.c | 11 ++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/lib/percpu_counter.c b/lib/percpu_counter.c >> index 5004463c4f9f..399840cb0012 100644 >> --- a/lib/percpu_counter.c >> +++ b/lib/percpu_counter.c >> @@ -227,6 +227,15 @@ static int percpu_counter_cpu_dead(unsigned int cpu) >> return 0; >> } >> >> +static __always_inline unsigned int num_count_cpus(void) >> +{ >> +#ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU >> + return (num_online_cpus() + num_dying_cpus()); >> +#else >> + return num_online_cpus(); >> +#endif >> +} >> + >> /* >> * Compare counter against given value. >> * Return 1 if greater, 0 if equal and -1 if less >> @@ -237,7 +246,7 @@ int __percpu_counter_compare(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 rhs, s32 batch) >> >> count = percpu_counter_read(fbc); >> /* Check to see if rough count will be sufficient for comparison */ >> - if (abs(count - rhs) > (batch * num_online_cpus())) { >> + if (abs(count - rhs) > (batch * num_count_cpus())) { > What problem is this actually fixing? You haven't explained how the > problem you are fixing manifests in the commit message or the cover > letter. Before commit 5825bea05265("xfs: __percpu_counter_compare() inode count debug too expensive"). I got issue as follows when do cpu online/offline test: smpboot: CPU 1 is now offline XFS: Assertion failed: percpu_counter_compare(&mp->m_ifree, 0) >= 0, file: fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c, line: 622 ------------[ cut here ]------------ kernel BUG at fs/xfs/xfs_message.c:110! invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP KASAN PTI CPU: 3 PID: 25512 Comm: fsstress Not tainted 5.10.0-04288-gcb31bdc8c65d #8 Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014 RIP: 0010:assfail+0x77/0x8b fs/xfs/xfs_message.c:110 Code: 7f 10 84 d2 74 0c 48 c7 c7 0c dc e6 ab e8 e8 1e 52 fd 8a 1d 5e 04 5b 01 31 ff 89 de e8 e9 37 14 fd 84 db 74 07 e8 60 36 14 fd <0f> 0b e8 59 36 14 fd 0f 0b 5b 5d 41 5c 41 5d c3 cc cc cc cc e8 47 RSP: 0018:ffff88810a5df5c0 EFLAGS: 00010293 RAX: ffff88810f3a8000 RBX: 0000000000000201 RCX: ffffffffaa8bd7c0 RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: 0000000000000001 RBP: 0000000000000000 R08: ffff88810f3a8000 R09: ffffed103edf71cd R10: ffff8881f6fb8e67 R11: ffffed103edf71cc R12: ffffffffab0108c0 R13: ffffffffab010220 R14: ffffffffffffffff R15: 0000000000000000 FS: 00007f8536e16b80(0000) GS:ffff8881f6f80000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 CR2: 00005617e1115f44 CR3: 000000015873a005 CR4: 0000000000370ee0 DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 Call Trace: xfs_trans_unreserve_and_mod_sb+0x833/0xca0 fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c:622 xlog_cil_commit+0x1169/0x29b0 fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c:1325 __xfs_trans_commit+0x2c0/0xe20 fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c:889 xfs_create_tmpfile+0x6a6/0x9a0 fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c:1320 xfs_rename_alloc_whiteout fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c:3193 [inline] xfs_rename+0x58a/0x1e00 fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c:3245 xfs_vn_rename+0x28e/0x410 fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c:436 vfs_rename+0x10b5/0x1dd0 fs/namei.c:4329 do_renameat2+0xa19/0xb10 fs/namei.c:4474 __do_sys_renameat2 fs/namei.c:4512 [inline] __se_sys_renameat2 fs/namei.c:4509 [inline] __x64_sys_renameat2+0xe4/0x120 fs/namei.c:4509 do_syscall_64+0x33/0x40 arch/x86/entry/common.c:46 entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x61/0xc6 RIP: 0033:0x7f853623d91d I can reproduce above issue by injecting kernel latency to invalidate the quick judgment of “__percpu_counter_compare()”. For quick judgment logic, the number of CPUs may have decreased before calling percpu_counter_cpu_dead() when concurrent with CPU offline. That leads to calculation errors. For example: Assumption: (1) batch = 32 (2) The final count is 2 (3) The number of CPUs is 4 If the number of percpu variables on each CPU is as follows when CPU3 is offline cpu0 cpu1 cpu2 cpu3 31 31 31 31 fbc->count = -122 So at this point, add a check to determine if fbc is greater than 0 abs(count - rhs) = -122 batch * num_ online_ cpus() = 32 * 3 = 96 That is: abs (count rhs)>batch * num_online_cpus() conditions met. The actual value is 2, but the fact that count<0 returns -1 is the opposite. > We generally don't care about the accuracy of the comparison here > because we've used percpu_counter_read() which is completely racy > against on-going updates. e.g. we can get preempted between > percpu_counter_read() and the check and so the value can be > completely wrong by the time we actually check it. Hence checking > online vs online+dying really doesn't fix any of the common race > conditions that occur here. > > Even if we fall through to using percpu_counter_sum() for the > comparison value, that is still not accurate in the face of racing > updates to the counter because percpu_counter_sum only prevents > the percpu counter from being folded back into the global sum > while it is running. The comparison is still not precise or accurate. > > IOWs, the result of this whole function is not guaranteed to be > precise or accurate; percpu counters cannot ever be relied on for > exact threshold detection unless there is some form of external > global counter synchronisation being used for those comparisons > (e.g. a global spinlock held around all the percpu_counter_add() > modifications as well as the __percpu_counter_compare() call). > > That's always been the issue with unsynchronised percpu counters - > cpus dying just don't matter here because there are many other more > common race conditions that prevent accurate, race free comparison > of per-cpu counters. > > Cheers, > > Dave.