mm,compaction: serialize waitqueue_active() checks
authorDavidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Wed, 22 Feb 2017 23:44:55 +0000 (15:44 -0800)
committerLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:41:29 +0000 (16:41 -0800)
commit46acef048a6568ba490f636db8682a1461ed223c
tree7efc7b456db2e0b3df833f895d409bf20efa8646
parentb92df1de5d289c0b5d653e72414bf0850b8511e0
mm,compaction: serialize waitqueue_active() checks

Without a memory barrier, the following race can occur with a high-order
allocation:

wakeup_kcompactd(order == 1)        kcompactd()
  [L] waitqueue_active(kcompactd_wait)
[S] prepare_to_wait_event(kcompactd_wait)
[L] (kcompactd_max_order == 0)
  [S] kcompactd_max_order = order;       schedule()

Where the waitqueue_active() check is speculatively re-ordered to before
setting the actual condition (max_order), not seeing the threads that's
going to block; making us miss a wakeup.  There are a couple of options
to fix this, including calling wq_has_sleepers() which adds a full
barrier, or unconditionally doing the wake_up_interruptible() and
serialize on the q->lock.  However, to make use of the control
dependency, we just need to add L->L guarantees.

While this bug is theoretical, there have been other offenders of the
lockless waitqueue_active() in the past -- this is also documented in
the call itself.

Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1483975528-24342-1-git-send-email-dave@stgolabs.net
Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
mm/compaction.c