Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751683Ab1CZEWM (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Mar 2011 00:22:12 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47099 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750707Ab1CZEWK (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Mar 2011 00:22:10 -0400 Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 00:21:56 -0400 From: Mike Snitzer To: Jens Axboe Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf , Sergey Senozhatsky , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chris Mason , tj@kernel.org, Vivek Goyal , Jeff Moyer Subject: Re: elevator private data for REQ_FLUSH Message-ID: <20110326042156.GB28458@redhat.com> References: <20110325151530.GA4414@swordfish.minsk.epam.com> <20110325152228.GA1707@gentoo.trippels.de> <20110325154024.GA16029@redhat.com> <4D8CB9C9.5010208@kernel.dk> <20110325185455.GA2969@redhat.com> <4D8CF202.9010809@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D8CF202.9010809@kernel.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3924 Lines: 93 On Fri, Mar 25 2011 at 3:50pm -0400, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 2011-03-25 19:54, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 25 2011 at 11:50am -0400, > > Jens Axboe wrote: > > > >> On 2011-03-25 16:40, Mike Snitzer wrote: > >>> On Fri, Mar 25 2011 at 11:22am -0400, > >>> Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 2011.03.25 at 17:15 +0200, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > >>>>> Hello, > >>>>> > >>>>> Commit > >>>>> 9d5a4e946ce5352f19400b6370f4cd8e72806278 > >>>>> block: skip elevator data initialization for flush requests > >>>>> > >>>>> Skip elevator initialization for flush requests by passing priv=0 to > >>>>> blk_alloc_request() in get_request(). As such elv_set_request() is > >>>>> never called for flush requests. > >>>>> > >>>>> introduced priv flag, to skip elevator_private data init for FLUSH requests. > >>>>> This, I guess, lead to NULL pointer deref on my machine in cfq_insert_request, > >>>>> which requires elevator_private to be set: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1 [ 78.982169] Call Trace: > >>>>> 2 [ 78.982178] [] cfq_insert_request+0x4e/0x47d > >>>>> 3 [ 78.982184] [] ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x6b/0x122 > >>>> > >>>>> Should we in that case use ELEVATOR_INSERT_FLUSH for REQ_FLUSH | REQ_FUA requests > >>>>> (like below)? > >>>>> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> > >>>>> block/elevator.c | 2 ++ > >>>>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > >>>>> > >>>>> diff --git a/block/elevator.c b/block/elevator.c > >>>>> index c387d31..b17e577 100644 > >>>>> --- a/block/elevator.c > >>>>> +++ b/block/elevator.c > >>>>> @@ -734,6 +734,8 @@ void __elv_add_request(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq, int where) > >>>>> q->end_sector = rq_end_sector(rq); > >>>>> q->boundary_rq = rq; > >>>>> } > >>>>> + } else if (rq->cmd_flags & (REQ_FLUSH | REQ_FUA)) { > >>>>> + where = ELEVATOR_INSERT_FLUSH; > >>>>> } else if (!(rq->cmd_flags & REQ_ELVPRIV) && > >>>>> where == ELEVATOR_INSERT_SORT) > >>>>> where = ELEVATOR_INSERT_BACK; > >>>> > >>>> Thanks. That solves all (corruption-) problems that I reported earlier in an other > >>>> thread. > >>> > >>> So the flush-merge changes introduced ELEVATOR_INSERT_FLUSH (via commit > >>> ae1b1539). And the flush bio will now get ELEVATOR_INSERT_FLUSH in > >>> __make_request(). > >>> > >>> So it is interesting that the flush is getting inserted in the elevator > >>> at all. AFAIK that shouldn't be (and historically hasn't been) the > >>> case. > >>> > >>> Combination of onstack plug changes? > >> > >> It is, it forces a sort insert. I'll fix this up, I'm relieved we have a > >> good handle on this issue now. > > > > Should we also add a safety net to avoid the potential for future silent > > corruption, etc? E.g.: > > Yes, I was thinking about something like that. I consider the patch > merged an immediate stop gap, we need to improve this situation. It's > not exactly pretty to have this sort of condition in both > __make_request() and flush_plug_list(). Clearly it should be handled > further down. OK, and btw my patch was too restrictive. blk_kick_flush() elv_insert()s a flush request with ELEVATOR_INSERT_REQUEUE. Should blk_kick_flush() process the flush request without calling elv_insert() -- like is done with open coded list_add() in blk_insert_flush()? Or should blk_insert_flush() use elv_insert() with ELEVATOR_INSERT_REQUEUE too? Mike -- 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/