Re: [PATCHv3 1/2] net: adding memory barrier to the poll and receive callbacks
From: Davide Libenzi <hidden>
Date: 2009-06-30 19:14:57
Also in:
lkml
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Jiri Olsa wrote:
Adding memory barrier after the poll_wait function, paired with
receive callbacks. Adding fuctions sock_poll_wait and sock_has_sleeper
to wrap the memory barrier.
Without the memory barrier, following race can happen.
The race fires, when following code paths meet, and the tp->rcv_nxt
and __add_wait_queue updates stay in CPU caches.
CPU1 CPU2
sys_select receive packet
... ...
__add_wait_queue update tp->rcv_nxt
... ...
tp->rcv_nxt check sock_def_readable
... {
schedule ...
if (sk->sk_sleep && waitqueue_active(sk->sk_sleep))
wake_up_interruptible(sk->sk_sleep)
...
}
If there was no cache the code would work ok, since the wait_queue and
rcv_nxt are opposit to each other.
Meaning that once tp->rcv_nxt is updated by CPU2, the CPU1 either already
passed the tp->rcv_nxt check and sleeps, or will get the new value for
tp->rcv_nxt and will return with new data mask.
In both cases the process (CPU1) is being added to the wait queue, so the
waitqueue_active (CPU2) call cannot miss and will wake up CPU1.
The bad case is when the __add_wait_queue changes done by CPU1 stay in its
cache, and so does the tp->rcv_nxt update on CPU2 side. The CPU1 will then
endup calling schedule and sleep forever if there are no more data on the
socket.+static inline int sk_has_sleeper(struct sock *sk)
+{
+ /*
+ * We need to be sure we are in sync with the
+ * add_wait_queue modifications to the wait queue.
+ *
+ * This memory barrier is paired in the sock_poll_wait.
+ */
+ smp_mb();
+ return sk->sk_sleep && waitqueue_active(sk->sk_sleep);
+}Jiri, since this is a pretty tricky condition, would you mind to have a reduced version of the patch comment added to the source code? Patch comments are not really useful when you're trying to make sense of some code ;) - Davide