From 6bcb51968c2719063b31c95b339a071a392c4beb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tom Lane Date: Sat, 15 May 2021 12:21:06 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Be more careful about barriers when releasing BackgroundWorkerSlots. ForgetBackgroundWorker lacked any memory barrier at all, while BackgroundWorkerStateChange had one but unaccountably did additional manipulation of the slot after the barrier. AFAICS, the rule must be that the barrier is immediately before setting or clearing slot->in_use. It looks like back in 9.6 when ForgetBackgroundWorker was first written, there might have been some case for not needing a barrier there, but I'm not very convinced of that --- the fact that the load of bgw_notify_pid is in the caller doesn't seem to guarantee no memory ordering problem. So patch 9.6 too. It's likely that this doesn't fix any observable bug on Intel hardware, but machines with weaker memory ordering rules could have problems here. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/4046084.1620244003@sss.pgh.pa.us --- src/backend/postmaster/bgworker.c | 13 ++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/src/backend/postmaster/bgworker.c b/src/backend/postmaster/bgworker.c index 850b652f9f..719292d5da 100644 --- a/src/backend/postmaster/bgworker.c +++ b/src/backend/postmaster/bgworker.c @@ -328,9 +328,11 @@ BackgroundWorkerStateChange(bool allow_new_workers) notify_pid = slot->worker.bgw_notify_pid; if ((slot->worker.bgw_flags & BGWORKER_CLASS_PARALLEL) != 0) BackgroundWorkerData->parallel_terminate_count++; - pg_memory_barrier(); slot->pid = 0; + + pg_memory_barrier(); slot->in_use = false; + if (notify_pid != 0) kill(notify_pid, SIGUSR1); @@ -417,6 +419,8 @@ BackgroundWorkerStateChange(bool allow_new_workers) * points to it. This convention allows deletion of workers during * searches of the worker list, and saves having to search the list again. * + * Caller is responsible for notifying bgw_notify_pid, if appropriate. + * * This function must be invoked only in the postmaster. */ void @@ -429,9 +433,16 @@ ForgetBackgroundWorker(slist_mutable_iter *cur) Assert(rw->rw_shmem_slot < max_worker_processes); slot = &BackgroundWorkerData->slot[rw->rw_shmem_slot]; + Assert(slot->in_use); + + /* + * We need a memory barrier here to make sure that the update of + * parallel_terminate_count completes before the store to in_use. + */ if ((rw->rw_worker.bgw_flags & BGWORKER_CLASS_PARALLEL) != 0) BackgroundWorkerData->parallel_terminate_count++; + pg_memory_barrier(); slot->in_use = false; ereport(DEBUG1,