Re: [BUG] I think sleepqueue need to be protected in sleepq_broadcast

John Baldwin wrote:
> On Sunday 31 August 2008 09:31:17 pm Tor Egge wrote:
>   
>> sleepq_resume_thread() contains an ownership handover of sq if the resumed
>> thread is the last one blocked on the wait channel.  After the handover, sq 
>>     
> is
>   
>> no longer protected by the sleep queue chain lock and should no longer be
>> accessed by sleepq_broadcast().
>>
>> Normally, when sleepq_broadcast() incorrectly accesses sq after the 
>>     
> handover,
>   
>> it will find the sq->sq_blocked queue to be empty, and the code appears to
>> work.
>>
>> If the last correctly woken thread manages to go to sleep again very quickly 
>>     
> on
>   
>> another wait channel, sleepq_broadcast() might incorrectly determine that 
>>     
> the
>   
>> sq->sq_blocked queue isn't empty, and start doing the wrong thing.
>>     
>
> So disregard my earlier e-mail.  Here is a simple fix for the sleepq case:
>
> Index: subr_sleepqueue.c
> ===================================================================
> --- subr_sleepqueue.c	(revision 182679)
> +++ subr_sleepqueue.c	(working copy)
> _at__at_ -779,7 +779,7 _at__at_
>  sleepq_broadcast(void *wchan, int flags, int pri, int queue)
>  {
>  	struct sleepqueue *sq;
> -	struct thread *td;
> +	struct thread *td, *tdn;
>  	int wakeup_swapper;
>  
>  	CTR2(KTR_PROC, "sleepq_broadcast(%p, %d)", wchan, flags);
> _at__at_ -793,8 +793,7 _at__at_
>  
>  	/* Resume all blocked threads on the sleep queue. */
>  	wakeup_swapper = 0;
> -	while (!TAILQ_EMPTY(&sq->sq_blocked[queue])) {
> -		td = TAILQ_FIRST(&sq->sq_blocked[queue]);
> +	TAILQ_FOREACH_SAFE(td, &sq->sq_blocked[queue], td_slpq, tdn) {
>  		thread_lock(td);
>  		if (sleepq_resume_thread(sq, td, pri))
>  			wakeup_swapper = 1;
>
> This only uses 'sq' to fetch the head of the queue once up front.  It won't
> use it again once it has started waking up threads.
>
>   
>> A similar (but probably much more difficult to trigger) issue is present 
>>     
> with
>   
>> regards to thread_lock() and turnstiles.
>>
>> The caller of thread_lock() might have performed sufficient locking to 
>>     
> ensure
>   
>> that the thread to be locked doesn't go away, but any turnstile spin lock
>> pointed to by td->td_lock isn't protected.  Making turnstiles type stable
>> (setting UMA_ZONE_NOFREE flag for turnstile_zone) should fix that issue.
>>     
>
> Note that unlike the sleepq case, turnstiles are not made runnable until all
> of them are dequeued from the turnstile and assigned a new turnstile.  Only
> after all that is settled are the threads made runnable in turnstile_unpend().
>
> However, that doesn't fix this specific race (though it means the turnstile
> code is not subject to the same exact race as the sleepq code above).  Making
> turnstiles type-stable is indeed probably the only fix for this. :-/
>
>   
I can confirm this patch fixes the repeatable panic which was causing:

panic: mutex sleepq chain (0xffffffff8102c460) not owned ....


type messages for me when DDB was enabled, deadlocks without it. It's 
the first time I've been able run a complete zpool scrub in multiuser 
mode in since 7.0 was released.
Tor, nice catch! Jb, thanks for the fix.
This also I believe solves amd64/124200

Cheers,
    Benjamin