From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Heinz Mauelshagen <heinzm@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/24] dm cache policy mq: return NULL if
 mq->free list is empty in alloc_entry
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 00:36:44 +0200
Message-ID: <526AF27C.8000501@redhat.com>
References: <1382639437-27007-1-git-send-email-snitzer@redhat.com>	<1382639437-27007-7-git-send-email-snitzer@redhat.com>	<20131025163701.GH17070@agk-dp.fab.redhat.com>
	<20131025204442.GF4804@redhat.com>
Reply-To: device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20131025204442.GF4804@redhat.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/options/dm-devel>,
	<mailto:dm-devel-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:dm-devel@redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:dm-devel-request@redhat.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel>,
	<mailto:dm-devel-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com
Errors-To: dm-devel-bounces@redhat.com
To: dm-devel@redhat.com
List-Id: dm-devel.ids


On 10/25/2013 10:44 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25 2013 at 12:37pm -0400,
> Alasdair G Kergon <agk@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 02:30:19PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>>> From: Heinz Mauelshagen <heinzm@redhat.com>
>>> Addresses callers' (insert_in*cache()) requirement that alloc_entry()
>>> return NULL when an entry isn't able to be allocated.
>>   
>> What is the code path that leads to the requirement for this patch?
>>
>>> +++ b/drivers/md/dm-cache-policy-mq.c
>>>   static struct entry *alloc_entry(struct mq_policy *mq)
>>> +	struct entry *e = NULL;
>>>   
>>>   	if (mq->nr_entries_allocated >= mq->nr_entries) {
>>>   		BUG_ON(!list_empty(&mq->free));
>>>   		return NULL;
>>>   	}
>>>   
>>> -	e = list_entry(list_pop(&mq->free), struct entry, list);
>>> -	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&e->list);
>>> -	INIT_HLIST_NODE(&e->hlist);
>>> +	if (!list_empty(&mq->free)) {
>>> +		e = list_entry(list_pop(&mq->free), struct entry, list);
>>> +		INIT_LIST_HEAD(&e->list);
>>> +		INIT_HLIST_NODE(&e->hlist);
>>> +		mq->nr_entries_allocated++;
>>> +	}
>> In other words, under what circumstances is mq->nr_entries_allocated
>> less then mq->nr_entries, yet the mq->free list is empty?
>>
>> Is it better to apply a patch like this, or rather to fix whatever situation
>> leads to those circumstances?  Has the bug/race always been there or is it a
>> regression?
> Fair questions, Heinz should explain further.
>
> IIRC this change was needed as a prereq for the conversion of his
> out-of-tree "background" policy to a shim (layered ontop of mq).

Has nothing to do with that.

It is a fix for existing callers presuming that alloc_entry() could 
return NULL but the
callee did not handle this properly.


>
> So will drop for now, can revisit if/when the need is clearer (e.g. when
> background policy goes upstream).  TBD if we need it in the near-term,
> but will table this for now.  Dropping patch until more context from
> Heinz is provided.

Leave it in for the aforementioned reason.

Heinz

>
> --
> dm-devel mailing list
> dm-devel@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel