Re: [PATCH] lockdep: annotate epoll

[Davide Libenzi]

On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Stefan Richter wrote:

> On 22 Jan, Stefan Richter wrote:
> > On 22 Jan, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> Curious though that this gets reported frequently the last few weeks,
> >> afaics this problem is way old.
> > 
> > Here is a report against Fedora's 2.6.23-0.222.rc9.git4.fc8, filed in
> > October:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=323411
> 
> Upstream bug: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9786
> 
> Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 19:44:26 +0100
> From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 13:35 -0800, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> 
> > I remember I talked with Arjan about this time ago. Basically, since 1) 
> > you can drop an epoll fd inside another epoll fd 2) callback-based wakeups 
> > are used, you can see a wake_up() from inside another wake_up(), but they 
> > will never refer to the same lock instance.
> > Think about:
> > 
> > 	dfd = socket(...);
> > 	efd1 = epoll_create();
> > 	efd2 = epoll_create();
> > 	epoll_ctl(efd1, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, dfd, ...);
> > 	epoll_ctl(efd2, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, efd1, ...);
> > 
> > When a packet arrives to the device underneath "dfd", the net code will 
> > issue a wake_up() on its poll wake list. Epoll (efd1) has installed a 
> > callback wakeup entry on that queue, and the wake_up() performed by the 
> > "dfd" net code will end up in ep_poll_callback(). At this point epoll 
> > (efd1) notices that it may have some event ready, so it needs to wake up 
> > the waiters on its poll wait list (efd2). So it calls ep_poll_safewake() 
> > that ends up in another wake_up(), after having checked about the 
> > recursion constraints. That are, no more than EP_MAX_POLLWAKE_NESTS, to 
> > avoid stack blasting. Never hit the same queue, to avoid loops like:
> > 
> > 	epoll_ctl(efd2, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, efd1, ...);
> > 	epoll_ctl(efd3, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, efd2, ...);
> > 	epoll_ctl(efd4, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, efd3, ...);
> > 	epoll_ctl(efd1, EPOLL_CTL_ADD, efd4, ...);
> > 
> > The code "if (tncur->wq == wq || ..." prevents re-entering the same 
> > queue/lock.
> 
> Since the epoll code is very careful to not nest same instance locks
> allow the recursion.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
> Tested-by: Stefan Richter <stefanr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  fs/eventpoll.c       |    2 +-
>  include/linux/wait.h |   16 ++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> Index: linux/fs/eventpoll.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/fs/eventpoll.c
> +++ linux/fs/eventpoll.c
> @@ -353,7 +353,7 @@ static void ep_poll_safewake(struct poll
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&psw->lock, flags);
>  
>  	/* Do really wake up now */
> -	wake_up(wq);
> +	wake_up_nested(wq, 1 + wake_nests);
>  
>  	/* Remove the current task from the list */
>  	spin_lock_irqsave(&psw->lock, flags);
> Index: linux/include/linux/wait.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux.orig/include/linux/wait.h
> +++ linux/include/linux/wait.h
> @@ -161,6 +161,22 @@ wait_queue_head_t *FASTCALL(bit_waitqueu
>  #define	wake_up_locked(x)		__wake_up_locked((x), TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE | TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE)
>  #define wake_up_interruptible_sync(x)   __wake_up_sync((x),TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, 1)
>  
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
> +/*
> + * macro to avoid include hell
> + */
> +#define wake_up_nested(x, s)						\
> +do {									\
> +	unsigned long flags;						\
> +									\
> +	spin_lock_irqsave_nested(&(x)->lock, flags, (s));		\
> +	wake_up_locked(x); 						\
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&(x)->lock, flags);			\
> +} while (0)
> +#else
> +#define wake_up_nested(x, s)		wake_up(x)
> +#endif
> +
>  #define __wait_event(wq, condition) 					\
>  do {									\
>  	DEFINE_WAIT(__wait);						\
> 

Looks fine to me.


Acked-by: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>



- Davide


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/