From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@parallels.com>,
"linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [GIT PULL] Queue free fix (was Re: [PATCH] block: Free queue resources at blk_release_queue())
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 08:14:42 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E832BD2.50409@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1317219074.19034.4.camel@dabdike.hansenpartnership.com>
On 2011-09-28 08:11, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 08:08 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 2011-09-27 22:10, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2011-09-27 at 18:59 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if you forward the actual patch to me (the one I see on lkml seems
>>>>>> to be broken and doesn't compile cleanly because it's assiging a
>>>>>> structure to a pointer), I'll try it out anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, that would be great. It's inlined below.
>>>>
>>>> Well, I did several USB eject events, and nothing bad happened.
>>>>
>>>> But as mentioned, I don't think that means much. Have you tried this
>>>> with slub debugging and poisoning? It might be worth some extra
>>>> testing that way.
>>>
>>> I've been testing a simpler version:
>>>
>>> http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=131300594629839
>>>
>>> For a long time now with great success. The only difference is the
>>> locking cleanup, but SCSI doesn't need that since it doesn't supply its
>>> own lock, so I've been voting for this as the final fix for a while now.
>>
>> The locking cleanup looks good, though, for devices that do use the
>> embedded lock.
>
> Exactly ... it's the missing piece; without it my patch is really only
> addressing SCSI.
>
>> But functionally they should be the same for SCSI, so if
>> you had great success with it, then that's a good data point.
>
> Right, I've run it through the memory debugger and USB ejection testing
> (with ext2, which seems to be the fs that triggers this problem the
> most).
Alright, lets call this fully tested and fixed then. Linus, I committed
it, please pull:
git://git.kernel.dk/linux-block.git for-linus
Hannes Reinecke (1):
block: Free queue resources at blk_release_queue()
block/blk-core.c | 13 ++++++-------
block/blk-sysfs.c | 5 +++++
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
index b2ed78a..d34433a 100644
--- a/block/blk-core.c
+++ b/block/blk-core.c
@@ -348,9 +348,10 @@ void blk_put_queue(struct request_queue *q)
EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_put_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
- * blk_throtl_exit() need queue lock.
+ * Note: If a driver supplied the queue lock, it is disconnected
+ * by this function. The actual state of the lock doesn't matter
+ * here as the request_queue isn't accessible after this point
+ * (QUEUE_FLAG_DEAD is set) and no other requests will be queued.
*/
void blk_cleanup_queue(struct request_queue *q)
{
@@ -367,10 +368,8 @@ void blk_cleanup_queue(struct request_queue *q)
queue_flag_set_unlocked(QUEUE_FLAG_DEAD, q);
mutex_unlock(&q->sysfs_lock);
- if (q->elevator)
- elevator_exit(q->elevator);
-
- blk_throtl_exit(q);
+ if (q->queue_lock != &q->__queue_lock)
+ q->queue_lock = &q->__queue_lock;
blk_put_queue(q);
}
diff --git a/block/blk-sysfs.c b/block/blk-sysfs.c
index e681805..60fda88 100644
--- a/block/blk-sysfs.c
+++ b/block/blk-sysfs.c
@@ -479,6 +479,11 @@ static void blk_release_queue(struct kobject *kobj)
blk_sync_queue(q);
+ if (q->elevator)
+ elevator_exit(q->elevator);
+
+ blk_throtl_exit(q);
+
if (rl->rq_pool)
mempool_destroy(rl->rq_pool);
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-28 14:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 65+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-22 13:18 [PATCH] block: Free queue resources at blk_release_queue() Hannes Reinecke
2011-09-28 0:47 ` Jens Axboe
2011-09-28 0:55 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-09-28 1:15 ` Jens Axboe
2011-09-28 1:59 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-09-28 2:02 ` Jens Axboe
2011-09-28 4:10 ` James Bottomley
2011-09-28 14:08 ` Jens Axboe
2011-09-28 14:11 ` James Bottomley
2011-09-28 14:14 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2011-09-28 15:22 ` [GIT PULL] Queue free fix (was Re: [PATCH] block: Free queue resources at blk_release_queue()) Linus Torvalds
2011-09-28 15:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-09-28 15:43 ` James Bottomley
2011-09-28 17:48 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-09-28 17:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-09-28 18:09 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-09-28 18:16 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-09-28 19:05 ` Eric Seppanen
2011-09-28 19:05 ` Eric Seppanen
2011-09-28 19:14 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-11-30 10:18 ` Jens Axboe
2011-11-30 10:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-09-28 22:34 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-09-28 17:59 ` James Bottomley
2011-10-13 13:09 ` Steffen Maier
2011-10-14 16:03 ` James Bottomley
2011-10-17 8:46 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2011-10-17 14:06 ` James Bottomley
2011-10-18 13:31 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2011-10-18 15:45 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-10-18 16:29 ` James Bottomley
2011-10-31 10:05 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-10-31 10:42 ` James Bottomley
2011-10-31 11:46 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2011-10-31 13:00 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-11-02 12:37 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2011-11-02 12:44 ` Hannes Reinecke
2011-11-02 12:44 ` Hannes Reinecke
2011-11-02 13:47 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-11-04 4:07 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2011-11-04 9:12 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-11-03 18:25 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-11-04 9:19 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-11-04 13:30 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-11-04 13:37 ` Hannes Reinecke
2011-11-07 11:31 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2011-11-07 13:42 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-11-07 12:23 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-11-07 11:30 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2011-11-07 15:36 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-11-07 16:43 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-11-07 17:10 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-11-07 21:44 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-11-09 9:37 ` Hannes Reinecke
2011-11-10 16:10 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-11-17 16:29 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-11-29 12:00 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-11-29 20:18 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-11-30 7:25 ` Hannes Reinecke
2011-11-30 7:25 ` Hannes Reinecke
2011-12-12 12:39 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-12-13 16:50 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-10-31 13:21 ` Mike Snitzer
2011-10-31 13:40 ` Heiko Carstens
2011-10-31 14:01 ` Mike Snitzer
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=4E832BD2.50409@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@parallels.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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.