Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 11 Apr 2018 13:02:45 -0700
From:   "tj@kernel.org" <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        "nborisov@suse.com" <nborisov@suse.com>,
        "axboe@kernel.dk" <axboe@kernel.dk>, "shli@fb.com" <shli@fb.com>,
        "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "00moses.alexander00@gmail.com" <00moses.alexander00@gmail.com>,
        "joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com" <joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com>,
        "arnd@arndb.de" <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] blk-cgroup: remove entries in blkg_tree before queue
 release
Message-ID: <20180411200245.GQ793541@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
References: <20180407102148.GA9729@gmail.com>
 <20180409220938.GI3126663@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
 <20180411101242.GA2322@gmail.com>
 <20180411142019.GG793541@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
 <20180411142859.GB2322@gmail.com>
 <5fafe1cbf6b0111448a81005c1c16feee24a99ad.camel@wdc.com>
 <20180411190027.GA21274@gmail.com>
 <b7809887-24e6-3ad7-e8bd-4fe7ea0927c0@wdc.com>
 <20180411195700.GP793541@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
 <6e2d8be78572fef5fe8f2e0e7ecbdea5839dc198.camel@wdc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6e2d8be78572fef5fe8f2e0e7ecbdea5839dc198.camel@wdc.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 08:00:29PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 12:57 -0700, tj@kernel.org wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 01:55:25PM -0600, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On 04/11/18 13:00, Alexandru Moise wrote:
> > > > But the root cause of it is in blkcg_init_queue() when blkg_create() returns
> > > > an ERR ptr, because it tries to insert into a populated index into blkcg->blkg_tree,
> > > > the entry that we fail to remove at __blk_release_queue().
> > > 
> > > Hello Alex,
> > > 
> > > Had you considered something like the untested patch below?
> > 
> > But queue init shouldn't fail here, right?
> 
> Hello Tejun,
> 
> Your question is not entirely clear to me. Are you referring to the atomic
> allocations in blkg_create() or are you perhaps referring to something else?

Hmm.. maybe I'm confused but I thought that the fact that
blkcg_init_queue() fails itself is already a bug, which happens
because a previously destroyed queue left behind blkgs.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun