linux-scsi.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Elias Oltmanns <eo@nebensachen.de>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>,
	linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SCSI: Fix some locking issues
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 13:24:57 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080703112456.GV20055@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87iqvn1ccf.fsf@denkblock.local>

On Thu, Jul 03 2008, Elias Oltmanns wrote:
> Elias Oltmanns <eo@nebensachen.de> wrote:
> > James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 20:45 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >
> >>> On Wed, Jul 02 2008, James Bottomley wrote:
> >>
> >>> > On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 13:50 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>> > > Yep, blk_plug_device() needs to be called with the queue lock held.
> >>> > 
> >>> > That's what the comment says ... but if you replaced the test_bit with
> >>> > an atomic operation then the rest of it does look to be in no need of
> >>> > serialisation ... unless there's something I missed?
> >>> 
> >>> Indeed, but then you would have to use atomic bitops everywhere and that
> >>> is the bit we moved away from.
> >>
> >> Not necessarily ... only for QUEUE_FLAG_CLUSTER.  That's really only in
> >> this one place and then the one in blk_remove_plug would have to become
> >> test_and_clear_bit.  All the other places barring loop_unplug() are only
> >> tests (which don't affect the atomicity).
> >>
> >> It's just for SCSI the double spin lock followed by double spin unlock
> >> to get the locking right is kind of nasty ... I'm just wondering what
> >> the universe would look like if it were rendered unnecessary.
> >
> > We have to consider one more thing: Without the locking in
> > blk_plug_device(), the following sequence of events may occur:
> 
> Actually, it's worse than that. Locking is required in order to make
> absolutely sure that the unplug_timer is active iff QUEUE_FLAG_PLUGGED
> is set. Admittedly, it seems *very* unlikely that blk_remove_plug() will
> complete before the call to mod_timer() in blk_plug_device() even though
> it has started only *after* a call to test_and_set_bit(). However, if
> such a thing would ever happen, it could have dire consequences.

Both are races possible without either atomic bitops or the queue lock
being held. We can't properly mix eg set_bit() and __set_bit(). The
plugged bit is the most hammered, so it's staying non-atomic and SCSI
will need to provide proper locking there.

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2008-07-03 11:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-06-29 11:38 [PATCH] SCSI: Fix some locking issues Elias Oltmanns
2008-07-01 21:37 ` Elias Oltmanns
2008-07-02  1:55   ` James Bottomley
2008-07-02  7:08     ` Elias Oltmanns
2008-07-02 11:50       ` Jens Axboe
2008-07-02 14:49         ` James Bottomley
2008-07-02 18:45           ` Jens Axboe
2008-07-02 20:18             ` James Bottomley
2008-07-03  7:53               ` Elias Oltmanns
2008-07-03 10:38                 ` Elias Oltmanns
2008-07-03 11:24                   ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2008-07-03 16:31                     ` James Bottomley
2008-07-03 17:54                       ` Jens Axboe
2008-07-03 19:47                       ` Elias Oltmanns
2008-07-03 21:33                         ` James Bottomley
2008-07-02 14:46       ` James Bottomley
2008-07-02 15:59         ` Elias Oltmanns
2008-07-02 16:23           ` Matthew Wilcox
2008-07-03  7:12             ` Elias Oltmanns
2008-07-03 15:22               ` James Bottomley
2008-07-03 19:39                 ` Elias Oltmanns
2008-07-03 15:47               ` Matthew Wilcox
2008-07-02 16:32           ` James Bottomley
2008-07-03  7:25             ` Elias Oltmanns

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=20080703112456.GV20055@kernel.dk \
    --to=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
    --cc=eo@nebensachen.de \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).