[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 2/2] dm: only initialize full request_queue for request-based device
    On Wed, May 19 2010 at  8:01am -0400,
    Mike Snitzer <> wrote:

    > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:57 AM, Kiyoshi Ueda <> wrote:
    > > Hi Mike,
    > >
    > > On 05/18/2010 10:46 PM +0900, Mike Snitzer wrote:
    > >> I'll post v5 of the overall patch which will revert the mapped_device
    > >> 'queue_lock' serialization that I proposed in v4.  v5 will contain
    > >> the following patch to localize all table load related queue
    > >> manipulation to the _hash_lock protected critical section in
    > >> table_load().  So it sets the queue up _after_ the table's type is
    > >> established with dm_table_set_type().
    > >
    > > dm_table_setup_md_queue() may allocate memory with blocking mode.
    > > Blocking allocation inside exclusive _hash_lock can cause deadlock;
    > > e.g. when it has to wait for other dm devices to resume to free some
    > > memory.
    > We make no guarantees that other DM devices will resume before a table
    > load -- so calling dm_table_setup_md_queue() within the exclusive
    > _hash_lock is no different than other DM devices being suspended while
    > a request-based DM device performs its first table_load().
    > My thinking was this should not be a problem as it is only valid to
    > call dm_table_setup_md_queue() before the newly created request-based
    > DM device has been resumed.
    > AFAIK we don't have any explicit constraints on memory allocations
    > during table load (e.g. table loads shouldn't depend on other devices'
    > writeback) -- but any GFP_KERNEL allocation could recurse
    > (elevator_alloc() currently uses GFP_KERNEL with kmalloc_node)...
    > I'll have to review the DM code further to see if all memory
    > allocations during table_load() are done via mempools. I'll also
    > bring this up on this week's LVM call.

    We discussed this and I understand the scope of the problem now.

    Just reiterating what you covered when you first pointed this issue out:

    It could be that a table load gets blocked (waiting on a memory
    allocation). The table load can take as long as it needs. But we can't
    have it block holding the exclusive _hash_lock while blocking. Having
    _hash_lock prevents further DM ioctls. The table load's allocation may
    be blocking waiting for writeback to a DM device that will be resumed by
    another thread.

    Thanks again for pointing this out; I'll work to arrive at an
    alternative locking scheme. Likely introduce a lock local to the
    multiple_device (effectively the 'queue_lock' I had before). But
    difference is I'd take that lock before taking _hash_lock.

    I hope to have v6 available at some point today but it may be delayed by
    a day.

    > > Also, your patch changes the queue configuration even when a table is
    > > already active and used.  (e.g. Loading bio-based table to a mapped_device
    > > which is already active/used as request-based sets q->requst_fn in NULL.)
    > > That could cause some critical problems.
    > Yes, that is possible and I can add additional checks to prevent this.
    > But this speaks to a more general problem with the existing DM code.
    > dm_swap_table() has the negative check to prevent such table loads, e.g.:
    > /* cannot change the device type, once a table is bound */
    > This check should come during table_load, as part of
    > dm_table_set_type(), rather than during table resume.

    I'll look to address this issue in v6 too.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2010-05-19 16:41    [W:0.030 / U:46.112 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site