From: Tao Cui <cui.tao@linux.dev>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: cui.tao@linux.dev, josef@toxicopanda.com, axboe@kernel.dk,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
andrii@kernel.org, eddyz87@gmail.com, ast@kernel.org,
daniel@iogearbox.net, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
Tao Cui <cuitao@kylinos.cn>,
ameryhung@gmail.com, alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v7 1/4] blk-iocost: add BPF struct_ops cost model support
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2026 12:14:57 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4f0e79fc-9413-4017-93a2-414b4370781f@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aeb50cff4d3014a43ded85247a5786da@kernel.org>
Hello, Tejun.
在 2026/9/30 00:27, Tejun Heo 写道:
> Hello, Tao.
>
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2026 21:42:51 +0800, Tao Cui wrote:
>> That leaves one race: .unreg may observe a non-NULL ops->q before
>> ioc_rqos_exit() clears it, then block on rq_qos_mutex while the
>> ejection drops the last bdev reference. This looks analogous to
>> hid_bpf's .unreg vs. destroy_device synchronization.
>>
>> Does that seem acceptable here too, or would you rather have .unreg
>> own the final reference unconditionally?
>
> No, there can't be a crash window like that. The underlying problem is
> that .unreg sleeps on a mutex inside a queue it holds no reference on. The
> model should still be ejected when the device goes away, but exactly when
> doesn't matter much as long as it happens in a reasonable amount of time.
>
> request_queues are RCU-freed, so maybe .unreg can rcu_dereference() ops->q
> and try to get a queue reference under rcu_read_lock()? blk_get_queue()
> fails on a dying queue, so this would need a tryget wrapper around
> q->refs. Holding its own reference, .unreg can then take rq_qos_mutex and
> test ops->q for NULL to tell whether removal already ejected the model.
>
.unreg now takes a queue reference before entering the queue: it
rcu_dereferences ops->q under rcu_read_lock() and uses a queue
reference tryget helper to keep the queue valid across the mutex wait. With
the reference held, .unreg freezes and quiesces the queue, takes
rq_qos_mutex and re-checks ops->q for NULL, so it can handle both the
normal detach path and the case where removal has already ejected
the model.
> Also, when .unreg detaches, the device is still live and the BPF code may
> be running. Freezing and quiescing the queue covers the IO paths but not
> iocg_init() and iocg_free() called from ioc_pd_init() and ioc_pd_free(),
> so the iocg_free() walk and clearing the model need to be synchronized
> against those too.
>
Clearing the model and the iocg_free() walk are now synchronized
under q->blkcg_mutex. This is the same mutex used when
blkg_create() and blkg_free_workfn() invoke pd_init_fn() and
pd_free_fn(), so the detach path is synchronized with the normal pd
callback paths.
While reworking the attach path, I also fixed two related issues I
noticed: the attach path no longer uses the ioc after releasing
rq_qos_mutex, and blkdev_get_no_open() failures are handled
correctly for unknown dev_t values.
v8 will follow shortly.
Thanks.
Tao
> Thanks.
>
> --
> tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-30 4:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-24 5:45 [RFC PATCH v7 0/4] blk-iocost: BPF struct_ops cost model Tao Cui
2026-09-24 5:45 ` [RFC PATCH v7 1/4] blk-iocost: add BPF struct_ops cost model support Tao Cui
2026-09-24 6:00 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-24 6:30 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-29 0:42 ` Tejun Heo
2026-09-29 13:42 ` Tao Cui
2026-09-29 16:27 ` Tejun Heo
2026-09-30 4:14 ` Tao Cui [this message]
2026-09-24 5:45 ` [RFC PATCH v7 2/4] selftests/bpf: add iocost cost model test Tao Cui
2026-09-24 5:57 ` sashiko-bot
2026-09-24 6:30 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-24 5:45 ` [RFC PATCH v7 3/4] blk-iocost: add iocost_ioc_tick tracepoint for per-period device summary Tao Cui
2026-09-24 6:17 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-09-29 0:42 ` Tejun Heo
2026-09-29 13:46 ` Tao Cui
2026-09-24 5:45 ` [RFC PATCH v7 4/4] docs: cgroup-v2: document the iocost BPF cost model attachment Tao Cui
2026-09-29 0:42 ` [RFC PATCH v7 0/4] blk-iocost: BPF struct_ops cost model Tejun Heo
2026-09-29 13:39 ` Tao Cui
2026-09-29 16:27 ` Tejun Heo
2026-09-30 4:09 ` Tao Cui
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=4f0e79fc-9413-4017-93a2-414b4370781f@linux.dev \
--to=cui.tao@linux.dev \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com \
--cc=ameryhung@gmail.com \
--cc=andrii@kernel.org \
--cc=ast@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=cuitao@kylinos.cn \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox.net \
--cc=eddyz87@gmail.com \
--cc=josef@toxicopanda.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--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.