lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 6/7] blk-mq: fix freeze queue race
From
Hi Tejun,

2015-09-27 2:32 GMT+09:00 Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 02:09:24AM +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote:
>> @@ -420,7 +420,9 @@ static void blk_mq_sysfs_init(struct request_queue *q)
>> /* see blk_register_queue() */
>> void blk_mq_finish_init(struct request_queue *q)
>> {
>> + mutex_lock(&q->mq_freeze_lock);
>> percpu_ref_switch_to_percpu(&q->mq_usage_counter);
>> + mutex_unlock(&q->mq_freeze_lock);
>
> This looks weird to me. What can it race against at this point?

The possible scenario is described in commit log (1. ~ 7.). In summary,
blk_mq_finish_init() and blk_mq_freeze_queue_start() can be executed
at the same time, so this is required to serialize the execution of
percpu_ref_switch_to_percpu() by blk_mq_finish_init() and
percpu_ref_kill() by blk_mq_freeze_queue_start().

>> @@ -115,11 +115,15 @@ void blk_mq_freeze_queue_start(struct request_queue *q)
>> {
>> int freeze_depth;
>>
>> + mutex_lock(&q->mq_freeze_lock);
>> +
>> freeze_depth = atomic_inc_return(&q->mq_freeze_depth);
>
> It doesn't have to be an atomic anymore, right?

Yes, you are right. I would like to make it in another patch in order to
simplify each change.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-27 15:21    [W:0.079 / U:0.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site