Message-ID: <30a17cd9-9ae1-4aaf-b08c-f8d1a8e4287d@iki.fi>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2024 14:57:47 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: "ERROR: latch already owned" on gharial
Content-Language: en-US
To: Soumyadeep Chakraborty <soumyadeep2007@gmail.com>,
 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Sandeep Thakkar <sandeep.thakkar@enterprisedb.com>,
 Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
 pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
 buildfarm-admins@lists.postgresql.org, CM Team <cm@enterprisedb.com>
References: <CANFyU97otyhwE_Ut+59thA-J6rh-XxJvdfS3W9R50hSymsSxQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220713082852.iyyxfilvrkiqdz2e@alvherre.pgsql>
 <CAE-ML+_CL3TfhLo6MjCSufinyugqSJWr8qEoWL8oAc-oT+P67g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <CAE-ML+_CL3TfhLo6MjCSufinyugqSJWr8qEoWL8oAc-oT+P67g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/30a17cd9-9ae1-4aaf-b08c-f8d1a8e4287d%40iki.fi>
Precedence: bulk

On 08/02/2024 04:08, Soumyadeep Chakraborty wrote:
> A possible ordering of events:
> 
> (1) DisownLatch() is called by pid Y during ProcKill() and the write for
> latch->owner_pid = 0 is NOT yet flushed to shmem.
> 
> (2) The PGPROC object for pid Y is returned to the free list.
> 
> (3) Pid X sees the same PGPROC object on the free list and grabs it.
> 
> (4) Pid X does sanity check inside OwnLatch during InitProcess and
> still sees the
> old value of latch->owner_pid = Y (and not = 0), and trips the ERROR.
> 
> The above sequence of operations should apply to PG HEAD as well.
> 
> Suggestion:
> 
> Should we do a pg_memory_barrier() at the end of DisownLatch(), like in
> ResetLatch(), like the one introduced in [3]? This would ensure that the write
> latch->owner_pid = 0; is flushed to shmem. The attached patch does this.

Hmm, there is a pair of SpinLockAcquire() and SpinLockRelease() in 
ProcKill(), before step 3 can happen. Comment in spin.h about 
SpinLockAcquire/Release:

>  *	Load and store operations in calling code are guaranteed not to be
>  *	reordered with respect to these operations, because they include a
>  *	compiler barrier.  (Before PostgreSQL 9.5, callers needed to use a
>  *	volatile qualifier to access data protected by spinlocks.)

That talks about a compiler barrier, though, not a memory barrier. But 
looking at the implementations in s_lock.h, I believe they do act as 
memory barrier, too.

So you might indeed have that problem on 9.4, but AFAICS not on later 
versions.

-- 
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)