From: Douglas Gilbert <dgilbert@interlog.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: SCSI development list <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
James Bottomley <james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
Milan Broz <gmazyland@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi_debug: deadlock between completions and surprise module removal
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 2014 10:40:06 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <540B1CC6.8010800@interlog.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5409D5D0.8060801@acm.org>
On 14-09-05 11:25 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 09/05/14 15:56, Douglas Gilbert wrote:
>> With scsi-mq I think many LLDs probably have a new
>> race possibility between a surprise rmmod of the LLD
>> and another thread presenting a new command at about
>> the same time (or another thread's command completing
>> around that time). Does anything above the LLD stop
>> this happening?
>>
>> Looking at mpt3sas and hpsa module exit calls, they don't
>> seem to guard against this possibility.
>>
>> The test is pretty easy: build the LLD as a module, load
>> it and fire up a multi-thread, libaio fio test on one or
>> more devices (SSDs would probably be good) on that LLD.
>> While the test is running, do 'rmmod LLD'.
>
> An LLD must call scsi_remove_host() directly or indirectly from the module
> cleanup path. scsi_remove_host() triggers a call to blk_cleanup_queue(). That
> last function sets the flag QUEUE_FLAG_DYING which prevents that new I/O is
> queued and waits until previously queued requests have finished before returning.
And they do call scsi_remove_host(). But they do that toward
the end of their clean-up. The problem that I observed has
already happened before that.
IOW I think the QUEUE_FLAG_DYING state needs to be set and
acknowledged as the first order of business by the code
that implements 'rmmod LLD'.
Doug Gilbert
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-06 14:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-31 23:09 [PATCH] scsi_debug: deadlock between completions and surprise module removal Douglas Gilbert
2014-09-01 15:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-09-01 19:52 ` Douglas Gilbert
2014-09-05 5:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-09-05 13:56 ` Douglas Gilbert
2014-09-05 15:25 ` Bart Van Assche
2014-09-06 14:40 ` Douglas Gilbert [this message]
2014-09-06 14:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-09-08 9:11 ` Bart Van Assche
2014-09-08 15:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-09-08 20:31 ` Douglas Gilbert
2014-09-09 15:30 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-09-25 12:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-10-03 18:16 ` Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)
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=540B1CC6.8010800@interlog.com \
--to=dgilbert@interlog.com \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=gmazyland@gmail.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--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