From: "Jun'ichi Nomura" <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: jaxboe@fusionio.com, roland@purestorage.com,
stern@rowland.harvard.edu, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>,
Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] Oops when SCSI device under multipath is removed
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:01:05 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E4345F1.9040501@ce.jp.nec.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4E432122.9050101@ce.jp.nec.com>
Hi James,
On 08/11/11 09:24, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
> On 08/11/11 04:52, James Bottomley wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 13:29 +0900, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
>>> 2) SCSI to call blk_cleanup_queue() from device's ->release() callback
>>> (before 2.6.39, it used to work like this)
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/7/2/106
>>
>> Well, they both have documented objections. I asked why we destroy the
>> elevator in the del case and didn't get any traction, so let me show the
>> actual patch which should fix all of these issues.
>>
>> Is there a good reason for not doing this as a bug fix now?
...
> I think it doesn't work because elevator_exit() and
> blk_throtl_exit() take &q->queue_lock, which may be freed
> by LLD after blk_cleanup_queue, before blk_release_queue.
If the reason you moved scsi_free_queue into scsi_remove_device
is marking the queue dead, how about the following patch?
Do you think it's acceptable?
Jun'ichi Nomura, NEC Corporation
Add blk_kill_queue() for drivers which want to mark the queue dead early.
blk_cleanup_queue() is an interface for LLD to notify block layer
that LLD no longer needs the queue.
Since q->queue_lock may point to a structure in LLD which is freed
after blk_cleanup_queue, blk_cleanup_queue() frees subordinate structures
like elevator, which uses q->queue_lock, to avoid invalid reference.
OTOH, LLD like SCSI wants to just mark the queue dead earlier in tear
down phase.
So this patch factors out the early part of blk_cleanup_queue into
blk_kill_queue for such drivers.
--- linux-3.1-rc1/include/linux/blkdev.h.orig 2011-08-11 11:19:52.585280223 +0900
+++ linux-3.1-rc1/include/linux/blkdev.h 2011-08-11 11:20:09.482279763 +0900
@@ -804,6 +804,7 @@ extern struct request_queue *blk_init_al
extern struct request_queue *blk_init_queue(request_fn_proc *, spinlock_t *);
extern struct request_queue *blk_init_allocated_queue(struct request_queue *,
request_fn_proc *, spinlock_t *);
+extern void blk_kill_queue(struct request_queue *);
extern void blk_cleanup_queue(struct request_queue *);
extern void blk_queue_make_request(struct request_queue *, make_request_fn *);
extern void blk_queue_bounce_limit(struct request_queue *, u64);
--- linux-3.1-rc1/block/blk-core.c.orig 2011-08-10 09:46:06.014043123 +0900
+++ linux-3.1-rc1/block/blk-core.c 2011-08-11 11:19:34.551280697 +0900
@@ -347,6 +347,17 @@ void blk_put_queue(struct request_queue
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_put_queue);
+void blk_kill_queue(struct request_queue *q)
+{
+ blk_sync_queue(q);
+
+ del_timer_sync(&q->backing_dev_info.laptop_mode_wb_timer);
+ mutex_lock(&q->sysfs_lock);
+ queue_flag_set_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_DEAD, q);
+ mutex_unlock(&q->sysfs_lock);
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_kill_queue);
+
/*
* Note: If a driver supplied the queue lock, it should not zap that lock
* unexpectedly as some queue cleanup components like elevator_exit() and
@@ -360,12 +371,7 @@ void blk_cleanup_queue(struct request_qu
* are done before moving on. Going into this function, we should
* not have processes doing IO to this device.
*/
- blk_sync_queue(q);
-
- del_timer_sync(&q->backing_dev_info.laptop_mode_wb_timer);
- mutex_lock(&q->sysfs_lock);
- queue_flag_set_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_DEAD, q);
- mutex_unlock(&q->sysfs_lock);
+ blk_kill_queue(q);
if (q->elevator)
elevator_exit(q->elevator);
--- linux-3.1-rc1/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c.orig 2011-08-09 18:48:13.676485115 +0900
+++ linux-3.1-rc1/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c 2011-08-11 11:21:07.923277456 +0900
@@ -322,6 +322,7 @@ static void scsi_device_dev_release_user
kfree(evt);
}
+ scsi_free_queue(sdev->request_queue);
blk_put_queue(sdev->request_queue);
/* NULL queue means the device can't be used */
sdev->request_queue = NULL;
@@ -937,7 +938,7 @@ void __scsi_remove_device(struct scsi_de
sdev->request_queue->queuedata = NULL;
/* Freeing the queue signals to block that we're done */
- scsi_free_queue(sdev->request_queue);
+ blk_kill_queue(sdev->request_queue);
put_device(dev);
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-11 3:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-10 4:29 [BUG] Oops when SCSI device under multipath is removed Jun'ichi Nomura
2011-08-10 19:52 ` James Bottomley
2011-08-11 0:24 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2011-08-11 3:01 ` Jun'ichi Nomura [this message]
2011-08-11 14:33 ` James Bottomley
2011-08-11 14:59 ` Alan Stern
2011-08-11 14:59 ` Alan Stern
2011-08-11 15:05 ` James Bottomley
2011-08-11 15:16 ` Alan Stern
2011-08-11 15:16 ` Alan Stern
2011-08-16 11:26 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2011-08-18 9:11 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2011-08-31 19:50 ` Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo
2011-09-08 0:00 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
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=4E4345F1.9040501@ce.jp.nec.com \
--to=j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=jaxboe@fusionio.com \
--cc=k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=roland@purestorage.com \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/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.