lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 001 of 9] md: Fix deadlock in md/raid1 and md/raid10 when handling a read error.
On Tuesday March 4, maan@systemlinux.org wrote:
> On 17:08, Neil Brown wrote:
> > > Do we really need to take the spin lock in the common case where
> > > conf->pending_bio_list.head is NULL? If not, the above could be
> > > optimized to the slightly faster and better readable
> > >
> > > struct bio *bio;
> > >
> > > if (!conf->pending_bio_list.head)
> > > return 0;
> > > spin_lock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> > > bio = bio_list_get(&conf->pending_bio_list);
> > > ...
> > > spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> > > return 1;
> >
> > Maybe... If I write a memory location inside a spinlock, then after
> > the spinlock is dropped, I read that location on a different CPU,
> > am I always guaranteed to see the new value? or do I need some sort of
> > memory barrier?
>
> Are you worried about another CPU setting conf->pending_bio_list.head
> to != NULL after the if statement? If that's an issue I think also
> the original patch is problematic because the same might happen after
> the final spin_unlock_irq() but but before flush_pending_writes()
> returns zero.

No. I'm worried that another CPU might set
conf->pending_bio_list.head *before* the if statement, but it isn't
seen by this CPU because of the lack of memory barriers. The spinlock
ensures that the memory state is consistent.
It is possible that I am being overcautious. But I think that is
better than the alternative.

Thanks,
NeilBrown


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-06 04:33    [W:0.053 / U:0.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site