From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ctalbott@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] block: reorganize throtl_get_tg() and blk_throtl_bio()
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:06:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111019170625.GD25124@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111019145622.GE1140@redhat.com>
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:56:22AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> A driver could call blk_cleanup_queue(), mark the queue DEAD and then
> free the driver provided spin lock. So once queue is DEAD one could
> not rely on queue lock still being there. That's the reason I did
> not try to take queue lock again if queue is marked DEAD.
>
> Now I see the change that blk_cleanup_queue will start poiting to
> internal queue lock (Thought it is racy). This will atleast make
> sure that some spinlock is around. So now this change should be
> fine.
The problem with the current code is that all those are not properly
synchronized. Drivers shouldn't destroy lock or any other stuff until
blk_cleanup_queue() is complete and once queue cleanup is done block
layer shouldn't call out to driver.
Currently, the code has different opportunistic checks which can catch
most of those cases but unfortunatly I think it just makes the bugs
more obscure.
That said, we probably should be switching to internal lock once
clenaup is complete.
> > * blk_throtl_bio() indicates return status both with its return value
> > and in/out param **@bio. The former is used to indicate whether
> > queue is found to be dead during throtl processing. The latter
> > whether the bio is throttled.
> >
> > There's no point in returning DEAD check result from
> > blk_throtl_bio(). The queue can die after blk_throtl_bio() is
> > finished but before make_request_fn() grabs queue lock.
>
> The reason I was returning error in case of queue DEAD is that I
> wanted IO to now return with error instead of continuing to call
> q->make_request_fn(q, bio) which does not do queue dead check and
> assumes queue is still alive.
>
> With this change, if queue is DEAD, bio will not be throttled and we
> will continue to submit bio to queue and I am not sure who will catch
> it in __make_request()?
The same thing - all that the check in blk-throtl does is somewhat
reducing the race window - without it the window starts after the DEAD
check in generic_make_request_checks(). One way or the other, this
doesn't make much meaningful difference and I think it just obscures
the bug both in behavior and code (it's being check here, it gotta be
safe!). So, I just wanted to remove it before fixing it properly.
Thank you.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-19 17:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-19 4:26 [PATCHSET block/for-next] fix request_queue life-cycle management Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 4:26 ` [PATCH 01/10] block: make gendisk hold a reference to its queue Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 4:26 ` [PATCH 02/10] block: fix genhd refcounting in blkio_policy_parse_and_set() Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 13:26 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 16:29 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 16:59 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 22:05 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 22:07 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 23:51 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-20 13:41 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-20 16:11 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-20 16:16 ` Kay Sievers
2011-10-20 17:50 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-20 17:47 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 4:26 ` [PATCH 03/10] block: move blk_throtl prototypes to block/blk.h Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 13:33 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 4:26 ` [PATCH 04/10] block: pass around REQ_* flags instead of broken down booleans during request alloc/free Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 13:44 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 16:31 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 4:26 ` [PATCH 05/10] block: drop unnecessary blk_get/put_queue() in scsi_cmd_ioctl() and blk_get_tg() Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 13:52 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 16:35 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 4:26 ` [PATCH 06/10] block: reorganize queue draining Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 4:26 ` [PATCH 07/10] block: reorganize throtl_get_tg() and blk_throtl_bio() Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 14:56 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 17:06 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2011-10-19 17:19 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 17:30 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 17:45 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 17:49 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 4:26 ` [PATCH 08/10] block: make get_request[_wait]() fail if queue is dead Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 15:22 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 4:26 ` [PATCH 09/10] block: drop @tsk from attempt_plug_merge() and explain sync rules Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 4:26 ` [PATCH 10/10] block: fix request_queue lifetime handling by making blk_queue_cleanup() proper shutdown Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 12:43 ` Jens Axboe
2011-10-19 17:13 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 18:04 ` Jens Axboe
2011-10-19 16:18 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 17:12 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 17:29 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 17:33 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 4:29 ` [PATCHSET block/for-next] fix request_queue life-cycle management Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 12:44 ` Jens Axboe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20111019170625.GD25124@google.com \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=ctalbott@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.