Skip to content
  • Will Deacon's avatar
    fs: dcache: Avoid livelock between d_alloc_parallel and __d_add · 015555fd
    Will Deacon authored
    
    
    If d_alloc_parallel runs concurrently with __d_add, it is possible for
    d_alloc_parallel to continuously retry whilst i_dir_seq has been
    incremented to an odd value by __d_add:
    
    CPU0:
    __d_add
    	n = start_dir_add(dir);
    		cmpxchg(&dir->i_dir_seq, n, n + 1) == n
    
    CPU1:
    d_alloc_parallel
    retry:
    	seq = smp_load_acquire(&parent->d_inode->i_dir_seq) & ~1;
    	hlist_bl_lock(b);
    		bit_spin_lock(0, (unsigned long *)b); // Always succeeds
    
    CPU0:
    	__d_lookup_done(dentry)
    		hlist_bl_lock
    			bit_spin_lock(0, (unsigned long *)b); // Never succeeds
    
    CPU1:
    	if (unlikely(parent->d_inode->i_dir_seq != seq)) {
    		hlist_bl_unlock(b);
    		goto retry;
    	}
    
    Since the simple bit_spin_lock used to implement hlist_bl_lock does not
    provide any fairness guarantees, then CPU1 can starve CPU0 of the lock
    and prevent it from reaching end_dir_add(dir), therefore CPU1 cannot
    exit its retry loop because the sequence number always has the bottom
    bit set.
    
    This patch resolves the livelock by not taking hlist_bl_lock in
    d_alloc_parallel if the sequence counter is odd, since any subsequent
    masked comparison with i_dir_seq will fail anyway.
    
    Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
    Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
    Reported-by: default avatarNaresh Madhusudana <naresh.madhusudana@arm.com>
    Acked-by: default avatarPeter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
    Reviewed-by: default avatarMatthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com>
    Signed-off-by: default avatarWill Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
    Signed-off-by: default avatarAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
    015555fd