Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] virtio-blk: Use block layer provided spinlock

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 05:08:33PM +0800, Asias He wrote:
> Block layer will allocate a spinlock for the queue if the driver does
> not provide one in blk_init_queue().
> 
> The reason to use the internal spinlock is that blk_cleanup_queue() will
> switch to use the internal spinlock in the cleanup code path.
>         if (q->queue_lock != &q->__queue_lock)
>                 q->queue_lock = &q->__queue_lock;
> 
> However, processes which are in D state might have taken the driver
> provided spinlock, when the processes wake up , they would release the
> block provided spinlock.

Are you saying any driver with its own spinlock is
broken if hotunplugged under stress?

> =====================================
> [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
> 3.4.0-rc7+ #238 Not tainted
> -------------------------------------
> fio/3587 is trying to release lock (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock) at:
> [<ffffffff813274d2>] blk_queue_bio+0x2a2/0x380
> but there are no more locks to release!
> 
> other info that might help us debug this:
> 1 lock held by fio/3587:
>  #0:  (&(&vblk->lock)->rlock){......}, at:
> [<ffffffff8132661a>] get_request_wait+0x19a/0x250
> 
> Cc: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
> Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
> Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
> Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Asias He <asias@redhat.com>
> ---
>  drivers/block/virtio_blk.c |    9 +++------
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> index ba35509..0c2f0e8 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> @@ -21,8 +21,6 @@ struct workqueue_struct *virtblk_wq;
>  
>  struct virtio_blk
>  {
> -	spinlock_t lock;
> -
>  	struct virtio_device *vdev;
>  	struct virtqueue *vq;
>  
> @@ -65,7 +63,7 @@ static void blk_done(struct virtqueue *vq)
>  	unsigned int len;
>  	unsigned long flags;
>  
> -	spin_lock_irqsave(&vblk->lock, flags);
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(vblk->disk->queue->queue_lock, flags);
>  	while ((vbr = virtqueue_get_buf(vblk->vq, &len)) != NULL) {
>  		int error;
>  
> @@ -99,7 +97,7 @@ static void blk_done(struct virtqueue *vq)
>  	}
>  	/* In case queue is stopped waiting for more buffers. */
>  	blk_start_queue(vblk->disk->queue);
> -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&vblk->lock, flags);
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(vblk->disk->queue->queue_lock, flags);
>  }
>  
>  static bool do_req(struct request_queue *q, struct virtio_blk *vblk,
> @@ -456,7 +454,6 @@ static int __devinit virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>  		goto out_free_index;
>  	}
>  
> -	spin_lock_init(&vblk->lock);
>  	vblk->vdev = vdev;
>  	vblk->sg_elems = sg_elems;
>  	sg_init_table(vblk->sg, vblk->sg_elems);
> @@ -481,7 +478,7 @@ static int __devinit virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device *vdev)
>  		goto out_mempool;
>  	}
>  
> -	q = vblk->disk->queue = blk_init_queue(do_virtblk_request, &vblk->lock);
> +	q = vblk->disk->queue = blk_init_queue(do_virtblk_request, NULL);
>  	if (!q) {
>  		err = -ENOMEM;
>  		goto out_put_disk;
> -- 
> 1.7.10.1