Il giorno 23 mag 2017, alle ore 21:42, Tejun Heo [off-list ref] ha =

scritto:

=20
Hello, Paolo.
=20
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 09:27:33AM +0200, Paolo Valente wrote:

quoted

Consider a process or a group that is moved from a given source group
to a different group, or simply removed from a group (although I
didn't yet succeed in just removing a process from a group :) ).  The
pointer to the [b|c]fq_group contained in the schedulable entity
belonging to the source group *is not* updated, in BFQ, if the entity
is idle, and *is not* updated *unconditionally* in CFQ.  The update
will happen in bfq_get_rq_private or cfq_set_request, on the arrival
of a new request.  But, if the move happens right after the arrival =

of

quoted

a request, then all the scheduler functions executed until a new
request arrives for that entity will see a stale [b|c]fq_group.  Much

=20
Limited staleness is fine.  Especially in this case, it isn't too
weird to claim that the order between the two operations isn't clearly
defined.
=20

ok

quoted

worse, if also a blkcg_deactivate_policy or a blkg_destroy are
executed right after the move, then both the policy data pointed by
the [b|c]fq_group and the [b|c]fq_group itself may be deallocated.
So, all the functions of the scheduler invoked before next request
arrival may use dangling references!

=20
Hmm... but cfq_group is allocated along with blkcg and blkcg always
ensures that there are no blkg left before freeing the pd area in
blkcg_css_offline().
=20

Exact, but even after all blkgs, as well as the cfq_group and pd, are
gone, the children cfq_queues of the gone cfq_group continue to point
to unexisting objects, until new cfq_set_requests are executed for
those cfq_queues.  To try to make this statement clearer, here is the
critical sequence for a cfq_queue, say cfqq, belonging to a cfq_group,
say cfqg:

1 cfq_set_request for a request rq of cfqq
2 removal of (the process associated with cfqq) from bfqg
3 destruction of the blkg that bfqg is associated with
4 destruction of the blkcg the above blkg belongs to
5 destruction of the pd pointed to by cfqg, and of cfqg itself
!!!-> from now on cfqq->cfqg is a dangling reference <-!!!
6 execution of cfq functions, different from cfq_set_request, on cfqq
	. cfq_insert, cfq_dispatch, cfq_completed_rq, ...
7 execution of a new cfq_set_request for cfqq
-> now cfqq->cfqg is again a sane pointer <-

Every function executed at step 6 sees a dangling reference for
cfqq->cfqg.

My fix for caching data doesn't solve this more serious problem.

Where have I been mistaken?

Thanks,
Paolo

Thanks.
=20
--=20
tejun