From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: block completion races
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 08:07:05 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020116080705.F3805@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3C44DC7B.D960D15D@zip.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <3C44DC7B.D960D15D@zip.com.au>
On Tue, Jan 15 2002, Andrew Morton wrote:
> void end_that_request_last(struct request *req)
> {
> if (req->waiting != NULL)
> complete(req->waiting);
>
> blkdev_release_request(req);
> }
>
>
> I think a bug. Sometimes (eg, cdrom_queue_packet_command())
> the request is allocated on a task's kernel stack. As soon as
> we call complete(), that task can wake and release the request
> while blkdev_release_request() is diddling it on this CPU.
>
> Do you see any problem with releasing the request before running
> complete()?. Also I think it's best to uninline blkdev_release_request().
> It's 104 bytes long, and we have four copies of it in ll_rw_blk.c. A
> patch is here.
Agreed, patch is fine with me.
> Also, there is this code in ide_do_drive_cmd():
>
> if (action == ide_wait) {
> wait_for_completion(&wait); /* wait for it to be serviced */
> return rq->errors ? -EIO : 0; /* return -EIO if errors */
> }
>
> Is it safe to use `rq' here? It has just been recycled in
> end_that_request_last() and we don't own it any more.
Not really, I guess it would be easiest to make end_that_request_last
return errors status.
> --- linux-2.4.18-pre4/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c Tue Jan 15 15:08:24 2002
> +++ linux-akpm/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c Tue Jan 15 17:39:22 2002
> @@ -546,7 +546,7 @@ static inline void add_request(request_q
> /*
> * Must be called with io_request_lock held and interrupts disabled
> */
> -inline void blkdev_release_request(struct request *req)
> +void blkdev_release_request(struct request *req)
> {
> request_queue_t *q = req->q;
> int rw = req->cmd;
> @@ -1084,10 +1084,11 @@ int end_that_request_first (struct reque
>
> void end_that_request_last(struct request *req)
> {
> - if (req->waiting != NULL)
> - complete(req->waiting);
> + struct completion *waiting = req->waiting;
>
> blkdev_release_request(req);
> + if (waiting != NULL)
> + complete(waiting);
> }
>
> #define MB(kb) ((kb) << 10)
I've applied this.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-01-16 7:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-01-16 1:50 block completion races Andrew Morton
2002-01-16 4:11 ` Andre Hedrick
2002-01-16 7:09 ` Jens Axboe
2002-01-16 7:07 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-01-16 16:55 Manfred Spraul
2002-01-16 18:50 ` Jens Axboe
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=20020116080705.F3805@suse.de \
--to=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=linux-kernel@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