-
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: Naresh Madhusudana <naresh.madhusudana@arm.com> Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org> Reviewed-by: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
015555fd