From: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, acme@mandriva.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk: fix dangling pointer access in __elv_add_request
Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 19:13:16 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <43673FBC.3070403@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20051101090857.GC26049@suse.de>
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01 2005, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
>>cfq's add_req_fn callback may invoke q->request_fn directly and
>>depending on low-level driver used and timing, a queued request may be
>>finished & deallocated before add_req_fn callback returns. So,
>>__elv_add_request must not access rq after it's passed to add_req_fn
>>callback.
>
>
> It's a generel problem, you may get the queue run at any time regardless
> of what the io scheduler is doing. CFQ does run the queue manully
> sometimes, but SCSI may do the very same thing for you as well. Given
> that SCSI also shortly reenables interrupts in the ->request_fn()
> handling, it's quite possible for the request to be completed.
>
> So, as we don't hold a reference to the request, I'd say your patch
> looks correct and should be applied right away.
>
>
>>Jens, does generalizing queue kicking functions and disallowing
>>ioscheds from directly calling q->request_fn sound like a good idea?
>
>
> Yes certainly.
>
The thing is that we are holding queue_lock before calling add_req_fn
callback and also after it finishes giving it an appearance of
atomicity. I think q->request_fn semantics is peculiar and a bit prone
to bug, so it might be better to make ioscheds always use generic queue
kicking function which always uses work queue to run q->request_fn so
that we don't have queue_lock releasing and regrabbing inbetween. Do
you think there can be any noticieable performance issues?
Hmmmm... One more thing about q->request_fn's locking behavior is that,
as I noted while posting the ordered patchset, for SCSI, the behavior
can reorder issued requests making it impossible to use ordered tags for
flushing. I'm thinking of submitting a patch to make scsi request_fn
atomic w.r.t. queue_lock, but there might be some performance issues I'm
not aware of. Functions which release and regrab locks underneath the
caller are just... hard. :-p
Thanks.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-11-01 10:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-11-01 8:23 [PATCH] blk: fix dangling pointer access in __elv_add_request Tejun Heo
2005-11-01 9:08 ` Jens Axboe
2005-11-01 10:13 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2005-11-01 12:15 ` 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=43673FBC.3070403@gmail.com \
--to=htejun@gmail.com \
--cc=acme@mandriva.com \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.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.