Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-72513-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:09:17 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
Cc: linan666@huaweicloud.com, axboe@kernel.dk,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@huawei.com>,
	linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, song@kernel.org,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	yi.zhang@huawei.com, houtao1@huawei.com, yangerkun@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: fix deadlock between bd_link_disk_holder and
 partition scan
Message-ID: <20240220080917.GA13056@lst.de>
References: <20240207092756.2087888-1-linan666@huaweicloud.com> <d7456326-ebb1-fc4a-9071-bf7083191211@huaweicloud.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d7456326-ebb1-fc4a-9071-bf7083191211@huaweicloud.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 04:53:36PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> Can you take a look at this patch? I think for raid(perhaps and dm and
> other drivers), it's reasonable to suspend IO while hot adding new
> underlying disks. And I think add new slaves to holder is not related to
> open the holder disk, because caller should already open the holder disk
> to hot add slaves, hence 'open_mutex' for holder is not necessary here.
>
> Actually bd_link_disk_holder() is protected by 'reconfig_mutex' for
> raid, and 'table_devices_lock' for dm(I'm not sure yet if other drivers
> have similiar lock).
>
> For raid, we do can fix this problem in raid by delay
> bd_link_disk_holder() while the array is not suspended, however, we'll
> consider this fix later if you think this patch is not acceptable.

Yes, not taking open_lock here seems reasonable, open_lock or it's
previous name has always been a bit of a catchall without very well
defined semantics.  I'd give the symbol a blk_ prefix, though.