From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ctalbott@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] block: reorganize throtl_get_tg() and blk_throtl_bio()
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:06:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111019170625.GD25124@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111019145622.GE1140@redhat.com>
Hello,
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:56:22AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> A driver could call blk_cleanup_queue(), mark the queue DEAD and then
> free the driver provided spin lock. So once queue is DEAD one could
> not rely on queue lock still being there. That's the reason I did
> not try to take queue lock again if queue is marked DEAD.
>
> Now I see the change that blk_cleanup_queue will start poiting to
> internal queue lock (Thought it is racy). This will atleast make
> sure that some spinlock is around. So now this change should be
> fine.
The problem with the current code is that all those are not properly
synchronized. Drivers shouldn't destroy lock or any other stuff until
blk_cleanup_queue() is complete and once queue cleanup is done block
layer shouldn't call out to driver.
Currently, the code has different opportunistic checks which can catch
most of those cases but unfortunatly I think it just makes the bugs
more obscure.
That said, we probably should be switching to internal lock once
clenaup is complete.
> > * blk_throtl_bio() indicates return status both with its return value
> > and in/out param **@bio. The former is used to indicate whether
> > queue is found to be dead during throtl processing. The latter
> > whether the bio is throttled.
> >
> > There's no point in returning DEAD check result from
> > blk_throtl_bio(). The queue can die after blk_throtl_bio() is
> > finished but before make_request_fn() grabs queue lock.
>
> The reason I was returning error in case of queue DEAD is that I
> wanted IO to now return with error instead of continuing to call
> q->make_request_fn(q, bio) which does not do queue dead check and
> assumes queue is still alive.
>
> With this change, if queue is DEAD, bio will not be throttled and we
> will continue to submit bio to queue and I am not sure who will catch
> it in __make_request()?
The same thing - all that the check in blk-throtl does is somewhat
reducing the race window - without it the window starts after the DEAD
check in generic_make_request_checks(). One way or the other, this
doesn't make much meaningful difference and I think it just obscures
the bug both in behavior and code (it's being check here, it gotta be
safe!). So, I just wanted to remove it before fixing it properly.
Thank you.
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-19 17:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-19 4:26 [PATCHSET block/for-next] fix request_queue life-cycle management Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 4:26 ` [PATCH 01/10] block: make gendisk hold a reference to its queue Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 4:26 ` [PATCH 02/10] block: fix genhd refcounting in blkio_policy_parse_and_set() Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 13:26 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 16:29 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 16:59 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 22:05 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 22:07 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 23:51 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-20 13:41 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-20 16:11 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-20 16:16 ` Kay Sievers
2011-10-20 17:50 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-20 17:47 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 4:26 ` [PATCH 03/10] block: move blk_throtl prototypes to block/blk.h Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 13:33 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 4:26 ` [PATCH 04/10] block: pass around REQ_* flags instead of broken down booleans during request alloc/free Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 13:44 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 16:31 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 4:26 ` [PATCH 05/10] block: drop unnecessary blk_get/put_queue() in scsi_cmd_ioctl() and blk_get_tg() Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 13:52 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 16:35 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 4:26 ` [PATCH 06/10] block: reorganize queue draining Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 4:26 ` [PATCH 07/10] block: reorganize throtl_get_tg() and blk_throtl_bio() Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 14:56 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 17:06 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2011-10-19 17:19 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 17:30 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 17:45 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 17:49 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 4:26 ` [PATCH 08/10] block: make get_request[_wait]() fail if queue is dead Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 15:22 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 4:26 ` [PATCH 09/10] block: drop @tsk from attempt_plug_merge() and explain sync rules Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 4:26 ` [PATCH 10/10] block: fix request_queue lifetime handling by making blk_queue_cleanup() proper shutdown Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 12:43 ` Jens Axboe
2011-10-19 17:13 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 18:04 ` Jens Axboe
2011-10-19 16:18 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 17:12 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 17:29 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-10-19 17:33 ` Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 4:29 ` [PATCHSET block/for-next] fix request_queue life-cycle management Tejun Heo
2011-10-19 12:44 ` 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=20111019170625.GD25124@google.com \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=ctalbott@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
/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).