On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 12:57:12PM +0000, Justin Hibbits wrote: > Author: jhibbits > Date: Wed Jun 6 12:57:11 2018 > New Revision: 334708 > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/334708 > > Log: > Add a memory barrier after taking a reference on the vnode holdcnt in _vhold > > This is needed to avoid a race between the VNASSERT() below, and another > thread updating the VI_FREE flag, on weakly-ordered architectures. > > On a 72-thread POWER9, without this barrier a 'make -j72 buildworld' would > panic on the assert regularly. > > It may be possible to use a weaker barrier, and I'll investigate that once > all stability issues are worked out on POWER9. > > Modified: > head/sys/kern/vfs_subr.c > > Modified: head/sys/kern/vfs_subr.c > ============================================================================== > --- head/sys/kern/vfs_subr.c Wed Jun 6 10:46:24 2018 (r334707) > +++ head/sys/kern/vfs_subr.c Wed Jun 6 12:57:11 2018 (r334708) > @@ -2807,6 +2807,9 @@ _vhold(struct vnode *vp, bool locked) > CTR2(KTR_VFS, "%s: vp %p", __func__, vp); > if (!locked) { > if (refcount_acquire_if_not_zero(&vp->v_holdcnt)) { > +#if !defined(__amd64__) && !defined(__i386__) > + mb(); > +#endif > VNASSERT((vp->v_iflag & VI_FREE) == 0, vp, > ("_vhold: vnode with holdcnt is free")); > return; First, mb() must not be used in the FreeBSD code at all. Look at atomic_thread_fenceXXX(9) KPI.
Second, you need the reciprocal fence between clearing of VI_FREE and refcount_acquire(), otherwise the added barrier is nop. Most likely, you got away with it because there is a mutex unlock between clearing of VI_FREE and acquire, which release semantic you abused. Does the fence needed for the non-invariants case ? Fourth, doesn't v_usecount has the same issues WRT inactivation ? _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
