From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
To: Tejun Huh <tejun@aratech.co.kr>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, B.Zolnierkiewicz@elka.pw.edu.pl
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ide task_map_rq() preempt count imbalance
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 08:40:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030903064057.GA14833@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030903055257.GA31635@atj.dyndns.org>
On Wed, Sep 03 2003, Tejun Huh wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 2.5 kernel continued to fail on my test machine with a lot of
> scheduling while atomic messages. The offending function was
> include/linux/ide.h:task_sectors() which calls task_map_rq() followed
> by process_that_request_first(), taskfile_{input|output}_data() and
> task_unmap_rq().
>
> static inline void *task_map_rq(struct request *rq, unsigned long *flags)
> {
> /*
> * fs request
> */
> if (rq->cbio)
> return rq_map_buffer(rq, flags);
>
> /*
> * task request
> */
> return rq->buffer + blk_rq_offset(rq);
> }
>
> static inline void task_unmap_rq(struct request *rq, char *buffer, unsigned long *flags)
> {
> if (rq->cbio)
> rq_unmap_buffer(buffer, flags);
> }
>
> rq_[un]map_buffer() eventually call into k[un]map_atomic() which
> adjust preempt_count(). The problem is that rq->cbio is cleared by
> process_that_request_first() before calling task_unmap_rq(), so the
> preempt_count() isn't decremented properly.
>
> As it seems that rq->cbio test is to avoid the cost of calling into
> k[un]map_atomic, I just removed the optimization and it worked for me.
>
> I'm not familiar with ide and block layer. If I got something wrong,
> please point out.
>
> --
> tejun
>
> # This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
> # Project Name: Linux kernel tree
> # This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
> # This patch includes the following deltas:
> # ChangeSet 1.1412 -> 1.1413
> # include/linux/ide.h 1.72 -> 1.73
> #
> # The following is the BitKeeper ChangeSet Log
> # --------------------------------------------
> # 03/09/03 tj@atj.dyndns.org 1.1413
> # - task_[un]map_rq() preempt count imbalance fixed.
> # --------------------------------------------
> #
> diff -Nru a/include/linux/ide.h b/include/linux/ide.h
> --- a/include/linux/ide.h Wed Sep 3 14:50:20 2003
> +++ b/include/linux/ide.h Wed Sep 3 14:50:20 2003
> @@ -853,22 +853,12 @@
>
> static inline void *task_map_rq(struct request *rq, unsigned long *flags)
> {
> - /*
> - * fs request
> - */
> - if (rq->cbio)
> - return rq_map_buffer(rq, flags);
> -
> - /*
> - * task request
> - */
> - return rq->buffer + blk_rq_offset(rq);
> + return rq_map_buffer(rq, flags);
> }
>
> static inline void task_unmap_rq(struct request *rq, char *buffer, unsigned long *flags)
> {
> - if (rq->cbio)
> - rq_unmap_buffer(buffer, flags);
> + rq_unmap_buffer(buffer, flags);
> }
>
> #endif /* !CONFIG_IDE_TASKFILE_IO */
This doesn't work, it's perfectly legit to use task_map_rq() on a
non-bio backed request. You need to fix this differently.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-09-03 6:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-09-03 5:52 [PATCH] ide task_map_rq() preempt count imbalance Tejun Huh
2003-09-03 6:40 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2003-09-03 7:00 ` Tejun Huh
2003-09-03 15:53 ` Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
2003-09-06 2:18 ` Tejun Huh
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=20030903064057.GA14833@suse.de \
--to=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=B.Zolnierkiewicz@elka.pw.edu.pl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tejun@aratech.co.kr \
/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