From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
Alasdair G Kergon <agk@redhat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
James Bottomley <JBottomley@parallels.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] block: Avoid invoking blk_run_queue() recursively
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:57:18 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5127BF8E.9080604@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130222181416.GO3570@htj.dyndns.org>
On 02/22/13 19:14, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Bart.
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:46:14AM +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> Some block drivers, e.g. dm and SCSI, need to trigger a queue
>> run from inside functions that may be invoked by their request_fn()
>> implementation. Make sure that invoking blk_run_queue() instead
>> of blk_run_queue_async() from such functions does not trigger
>> recursion. Making blk_run_queue() skip queue processing when
>> invoked recursively is safe because the only two affected
>> request_fn() implementations (dm and SCSI) guarantee that the
>> request queue will be reexamined sooner or later before returning
>> from their request_fn() implementation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
>> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
>> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
>> Cc: James Bottomley <JBottomley@parallels.com>
>> Cc: Alasdair G Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
>> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
>> ---
>> block/blk-core.c | 21 +++++++++++++--------
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
>> index c973249..cf26e3a 100644
>> --- a/block/blk-core.c
>> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
>> @@ -304,19 +304,24 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_sync_queue);
>> * This variant runs the queue whether or not the queue has been
>> * stopped. Must be called with the queue lock held and interrupts
>> * disabled. See also @blk_run_queue.
>> + *
>> + * Note:
>> + * Request handling functions are allowed to invoke __blk_run_queue() or
>> + * blk_run_queue() directly or indirectly. This will not result in a
>> + * recursive call of the request handler. However, such request handling
>> + * functions must, before they return, either reexamine the request queue
>> + * or invoke blk_delay_queue() to avoid that queue processing stops.
>> + *
>> + * Some request handler implementations, e.g. scsi_request_fn() and
>> + * dm_request_fn(), unlock the queue lock internally. Returning immediately
>> + * if q->request_fn_active > 0 avoids that for the same queue multiple
>> + * threads execute the request handling function concurrently.
>> */
>> inline void __blk_run_queue_uncond(struct request_queue *q)
>> {
>> - if (unlikely(blk_queue_dead(q)))
>> + if (unlikely(blk_queue_dead(q) || q->request_fn_active))
>> return;
>
> Hmmm... I can't say I like this. Silently ignoring explicit
> blk_run_queue() call like this is likely to introduce nasty queue hang
> bugs later on even if it's okay for the current users and there isn't
> even debugging aid to detect what's going on. If somebody invokes
> blk_run_queue(), block layer better guarantee that the queue will be
> run at least once afterwards no matter what, so please don't it this
> way.
How about returning to an approach similar to the one introduced in commit
a538cd03 (April 2009) ? This is how the last part of __blk_run_queue()
looked like after that commit:
/*
* Only recurse once to avoid overrunning the stack, let the unplug
* handling reinvoke the handler shortly if we already got there.
*/
if (!queue_flag_test_and_set(QUEUE_FLAG_REENTER, q)) {
q->request_fn(q);
queue_flag_clear(QUEUE_FLAG_REENTER, q);
} else {
queue_flag_set(QUEUE_FLAG_PLUGGED, q);
kblockd_schedule_work(q, &q->unplug_work);
}
Bart.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-22 18:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-22 10:45 [PATCH 0/2] dm: Avoid use-after-free of a mapped device Bart Van Assche
2013-02-22 10:46 ` [PATCH 1/2] block: Avoid invoking blk_run_queue() recursively Bart Van Assche
2013-02-22 18:14 ` Tejun Heo
2013-02-22 18:57 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2013-02-22 19:01 ` Jens Axboe
2013-02-23 12:34 ` Bart Van Assche
2013-02-22 10:47 ` [PATCH 2/2] dm: Avoid use-after-free of a mapped device Bart Van Assche
2013-02-22 11:08 ` Mike Snitzer
2013-02-22 11:22 ` Bart Van Assche
2013-02-22 11:28 ` Mike Snitzer
2013-02-25 9:49 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2013-02-25 15:09 ` Bart Van Assche
2013-02-26 0:30 ` 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=5127BF8E.9080604@acm.org \
--to=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=JBottomley@parallels.com \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
--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.