Message-ID: <1390405618.20232.42.camel@bobble.lax.corp.google.com>
Subject: Re: Crash in elevator_dispatch_fn() (e.g. deadline_dispatch()) when
 changing elevators.
From: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 07:46:58 -0800
In-Reply-To: <1390319905.20232.38.camel@bobble.lax.corp.google.com>
References: <1389995976.20232.27.camel@bobble.lax.corp.google.com>
	 <20140118143145.GD3640@htj.dyndns.org>
	 <1390319905.20232.38.camel@bobble.lax.corp.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 07:58 -0800, Frank Mayhar wrote:
> Replacing?  Or adding to?  Is BYPASS always set when DYING is set?  (My
> guess is not but I haven't done an exhaustive analysis.)  So the
> relevant code snippet in __elv_next_request() would be:
> 		if (unlikely(blk_queue_dying(q)) ||
> 		    unlikely(blk_queue_bypass(q)) ||
> 		    !q->elevator->type->ops.elevator_dispatch_fn(q, 0))
> 			return NULL;

FYI, I've made this change and tested it.  I can't say for certain that
it fixes the crash (since it's one of those races that's difficult to
reproduce), but it does seem to pass all the tests I've thrown at it so
far.
-- 
Frank Mayhar
310-460-4042

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/