From: Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Cc: dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
Jun'ichi Nomura <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@suse.de>,
Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] dm: only initialize full request_queue for request-based device
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 14:57:41 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BF37DD5.9050409@ct.jp.nec.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100518134639.GA27582@redhat.com>
Hi Mike,
On 05/18/2010 10:46 PM +0900, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com> wrote:
>> On 05/18/2010 02:27 AM +0900, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>>> Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com> wrote:
>>>> As far as I understand, the current model of device-mapper is:
>>>> - a table (precisely, a target) has various attributes,
>>>> bio-based/request-based is one of such attributes
>>>> - a table and its attributes are bound to the block device on resume
>>>> If we want to fix a problem, I think we should either work based on
>>>> this model or change the model.
>>>>
>>>> Your patch makes that loading table affects the block device, so you
>>>> are changing the model.
>>>>
>>>> If you change the model, it should be done carefully.
>>>> For example, the current model allows most of the table loading code
>>>> to run without exclusive lock on the device because it doesn't affect
>>>> the device itself. If you change this model, table loading needs to
>>>> be serialized with appropriate locking.
>>>
>>> Nice catch, yes md->queue needs protection (see patch below).
>>
>> Not enough. (See drivers/md/dm-ioctl.c:table_load().)
>> Table load sequence is:
>> 1. populate table
>> 2. set the table to ->new_map of the hash_cell for the mapped_device
>> in protection by _hash_lock.
>>
>> Since your fix only serializes the step 1, concurrent table loading
>> could end up with inconsistent status; e.g. request-based table is
>> bound to the mapped_device while the queue is initialized as bio-based.
>> With your new model, those 2 steps above must be atomic.
>
> Ah, yes.. I looked at the possibility of serializing the entirety of
> table_load but determined that would be too excessive (would reduce
> parallelism of table_load). But I clearly missed the fact that there
> could be a race to the _hash_lock protected critical section in
> table_load() -- leading to queue inconsistency.
>
> I'll post v5 of the overall patch which will revert the mapped_device
> 'queue_lock' serialization that I proposed in v4. v5 will contain
> the following patch to localize all table load related queue
> manipulation to the _hash_lock protected critical section in
> table_load(). So it sets the queue up _after_ the table's type is
> established with dm_table_set_type().
dm_table_setup_md_queue() may allocate memory with blocking mode.
Blocking allocation inside exclusive _hash_lock can cause deadlock;
e.g. when it has to wait for other dm devices to resume to free some
memory.
Also, your patch changes the queue configuration even when a table is
already active and used. (e.g. Loading bio-based table to a mapped_device
which is already active/used as request-based sets q->requst_fn in NULL.)
That could cause some critical problems.
Thanks,
Kiyoshi Ueda
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-19 5:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-10 22:55 [RFC PATCH 1/2] block: allow initialization of previously allocated request_queue Mike Snitzer
2010-05-10 22:55 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-10 22:55 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] dm: only initialize full request_queue for request-based device Mike Snitzer
2010-05-10 22:55 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-11 4:23 ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-11 13:15 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-12 8:23 ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-13 3:57 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-14 8:06 ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-14 14:08 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-17 9:27 ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-17 17:27 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-18 8:32 ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-18 13:46 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-18 13:46 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-19 5:57 ` Kiyoshi Ueda [this message]
2010-05-19 12:01 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-19 12:01 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-19 14:39 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-19 14:45 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-20 11:21 ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-20 17:07 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-21 8:32 ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-21 13:34 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-24 9:58 ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-19 21:51 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-13 4:31 ` [PATCH 2/2 v2] " Mike Snitzer
2010-05-13 5:02 ` [RFC PATCH 3/2] dm: bio-based device must not register elevator in sysfs Mike Snitzer
2010-05-13 22:14 ` [PATCH 3/2 v2] " Mike Snitzer
2010-05-11 6:55 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] block: allow initialization of previously allocated request_queue Jens Axboe
2010-05-11 13:18 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-11 13:21 ` 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=4BF37DD5.9050409@ct.jp.nec.com \
--to=k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=knikanth@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
--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.