io-wq: fix no lock protection of acct->nr_worker
There is an acct->nr_worker visit without lock protection. Think about
the case: two callers call io_wqe_wake_worker(), one is the original
context and the other one is an io-worker(by calling
io_wqe_enqueue(wqe, linked)), on two cpus paralelly, this may cause
nr_worker to be larger than max_worker.
Let's fix it by adding lock for it, and let's do nr_workers++ before
create_io_worker. There may be a edge cause that the first caller fails
to create an io-worker, but the second caller doesn't know it and then
quit creating io-worker as well:
say nr_worker = max_worker - 1
cpu 0 cpu 1
io_wqe_wake_worker() io_wqe_wake_worker()
nr_worker < max_worker
nr_worker++
create_io_worker() nr_worker == max_worker
failed return
return
But the chance of this case is very slim.
Fixes: 685fe7feed
("io-wq: eliminate the need for a manager thread")
Signed-off-by: Hao Xu <haoxu@linux.alibaba.com>
[axboe: fix unconditional create_io_worker() call]
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
This commit is contained in:
parent
83d6c39310
commit
3d4e4face9
23
fs/io-wq.c
23
fs/io-wq.c
|
@ -247,10 +247,19 @@ static void io_wqe_wake_worker(struct io_wqe *wqe, struct io_wqe_acct *acct)
|
|||
ret = io_wqe_activate_free_worker(wqe);
|
||||
rcu_read_unlock();
|
||||
|
||||
if (!ret && acct->nr_workers < acct->max_workers) {
|
||||
atomic_inc(&acct->nr_running);
|
||||
atomic_inc(&wqe->wq->worker_refs);
|
||||
create_io_worker(wqe->wq, wqe, acct->index);
|
||||
if (!ret) {
|
||||
bool do_create = false;
|
||||
|
||||
raw_spin_lock_irq(&wqe->lock);
|
||||
if (acct->nr_workers < acct->max_workers) {
|
||||
atomic_inc(&acct->nr_running);
|
||||
atomic_inc(&wqe->wq->worker_refs);
|
||||
acct->nr_workers++;
|
||||
do_create = true;
|
||||
}
|
||||
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&wqe->lock);
|
||||
if (do_create)
|
||||
create_io_worker(wqe->wq, wqe, acct->index);
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -635,6 +644,9 @@ static void create_io_worker(struct io_wq *wq, struct io_wqe *wqe, int index)
|
|||
kfree(worker);
|
||||
fail:
|
||||
atomic_dec(&acct->nr_running);
|
||||
raw_spin_lock_irq(&wqe->lock);
|
||||
acct->nr_workers--;
|
||||
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&wqe->lock);
|
||||
io_worker_ref_put(wq);
|
||||
return;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
@ -650,9 +662,8 @@ fail:
|
|||
worker->flags |= IO_WORKER_F_FREE;
|
||||
if (index == IO_WQ_ACCT_BOUND)
|
||||
worker->flags |= IO_WORKER_F_BOUND;
|
||||
if (!acct->nr_workers && (worker->flags & IO_WORKER_F_BOUND))
|
||||
if ((acct->nr_workers == 1) && (worker->flags & IO_WORKER_F_BOUND))
|
||||
worker->flags |= IO_WORKER_F_FIXED;
|
||||
acct->nr_workers++;
|
||||
raw_spin_unlock_irq(&wqe->lock);
|
||||
wake_up_new_task(tsk);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue