Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Sender: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Dec 2022 06:01:30 -1000
From:   Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To:     Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
Cc:     hch@infradead.org, josef@toxicpanda.com, axboe@kernel.dk,
        cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yi.zhang@huawei.com,
        "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 0/4] blk-cgroup: synchronize del_gendisk() with
 configuring cgroup policy
Message-ID: <Y6HcWiJbaWjN3jlt@slm.duckdns.org>
References: <20221217030908.1261787-1-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
 <Y6DP3aOSad8+D1yY@slm.duckdns.org>
 <e01daffe-a3e3-8bf2-40ee-192a9e70d911@huaweicloud.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <e01daffe-a3e3-8bf2-40ee-192a9e70d911@huaweicloud.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello,

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 05:19:12PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> Yes, that sounds good. BTW, queue_lock is also used to protect
> pd_alloc_fn/pd_init_fn，and we found that blkcg_activate_policy() is
> problematic:
> 
> blkcg_activate_policy
>  spin_lock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
>  list_for_each_entry_reverse(blkg, &q->blkg_list
>   pd_alloc_fn(GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN,...) -> failed
> 
>   spin_unlock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
>   // release queue_lock here is problematic, this will cause
> pd_offline_fn called without pd_init_fn.
>   pd_alloc_fn(__GFP_NOWARN,...)

So, if a blkg is destroyed while a policy is being activated, right?

> If we are using a mutex to protect rq_qos ops, it seems the right thing
> to do do also using the mutex to protect blkcg_policy ops, and this
> problem can be fixed because mutex can be held to alloc memroy with
> GFP_KERNEL. What do you think?

One worry is that switching to mutex can be more headache due to destroy
path synchronization. Another approach would be using a per-blkg flag to
track whether a blkg has been initialized.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun