From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, ctalbott@google.com, rni@google.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] blkcg: drop unnecessary RCU locking
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:28:57 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120217172857.GD26620@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120217171113.GB26575@google.com>
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 09:11:13AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 11:47:49AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > So now in some cases we call blkg_lookup_create() with both queue and rcu
> > read lock held (cfq_lookup_create_cfqg()) and in this case hold only queue
> > lock.
>
> So, this should be okay. It's currently not because blkg_alloc() is
> broken due to percpu allocation but other than that calling both w/
> and w/o RCU read lock should be fine.
>
> > blkg_lookup_create() calls blkg_lookup() which expects a rcu_read_lock()
> > to be held and we will be travesing that list without rcu_read_lock()
> > held. Isn't that a problem?
>
> No, why would it be a problem?
I am kind of confused that what are the semantics of calling
blkg_lookup_create(). Given the fact that it traverses the
blkcg->blkg_list which is rcu protected, so either we should have
rcu read lock held or we should have blkcg->lock held.
So there might not be any problem, just that looking at the code
I am not very clear abou the locking sematics of blkg_lookup(). May
be some documentation will help that it should be called with
what locks in what situation. Specifically, when should it be called
with rcu_read_lock() held.
>
> > We might be examining a blkg belonging to a different queue and it
> > might be being freed parallely.
>
> How?
Can pre_destroy() and blkio_policy_parse_and_set() make progress in
parallel for same cgroup(blkcg) but different queue.
If yes, blkg_lookup() might be doing blkg->q == q check and pre_destroy
might delete that group and free it up.
Thanks
Vivek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-17 17:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-16 22:37 [PATCHSET] blkcg: update locking and fix stacking Tejun Heo
2012-02-16 22:37 ` [PATCH 1/9] blkcg: use double locking instead of RCU for blkg synchronization Tejun Heo
2012-02-16 22:37 ` [PATCH 2/9] blkcg: drop unnecessary RCU locking Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 16:19 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-17 17:07 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 17:14 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 16:47 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-17 17:11 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 17:28 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2012-02-17 17:43 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 18:08 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-17 18:16 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-22 0:49 ` [PATCH UPDATED " Tejun Heo
2012-02-16 22:37 ` [PATCH 3/9] block: restructure get_request() Tejun Heo
2012-02-16 22:37 ` [PATCH 4/9] block: interface update for ioc/icq creation functions Tejun Heo
2012-02-16 22:37 ` [PATCH 5/9] block: ioc_task_link() can't fail Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 20:41 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-17 22:18 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-16 22:37 ` [PATCH 6/9] block: add io_context->active_ref Tejun Heo
2012-02-16 22:37 ` [PATCH 7/9] block: implement bio_associate_current() Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 1:19 ` Kent Overstreet
2012-02-17 22:14 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 22:34 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-17 22:41 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 22:51 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-17 22:57 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-20 14:22 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-20 16:59 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-20 19:14 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-20 21:21 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-27 23:12 ` Chris Wright
2012-02-28 14:10 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-28 17:01 ` Chris Wright
2012-02-28 20:11 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2012-02-20 14:36 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-20 17:01 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-20 19:16 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-20 21:06 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-20 21:10 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-17 22:56 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-17 23:06 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 21:33 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-17 22:03 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 22:29 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-17 22:38 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 22:42 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-16 22:37 ` [PATCH 8/9] block: make block cgroup policies follow bio task association Tejun Heo
2012-02-16 22:37 ` [PATCH 9/9] block: make blk-throttle preserve the issuing task on delayed bios Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 21:58 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-17 22:17 ` Tejun Heo
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=20120217172857.GD26620@redhat.com \
--to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=ctalbott@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rni@google.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/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.