Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752267Ab2BQQUH (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:20:07 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:17412 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751812Ab2BQQUF (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:20:05 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:19:58 -0500 From: Vivek Goyal To: Tejun Heo Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, ctalbott@google.com, rni@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] blkcg: drop unnecessary RCU locking Message-ID: <20120217161958.GB26620@redhat.com> References: <1329431878-28300-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> <1329431878-28300-3-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1329431878-28300-3-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> 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: 1448 Lines: 45 On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 02:37:51PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote: > Now that blkg additions / removals are always done under both q and > blkcg locks, the only place RCU locking is used is blkg_lookup() for > lockless lookup. This patch drops unncessary RCU locking replacing it > with plain blkcg / q locking as necessary. > > * blkg_lookup_create() and blkiocg_pre_destroy() already perform > proper locking and don't need RCU. Dropped. But blkg_lookup_create() is called under rcu() to protect blkcg pointer. And blkg_lookup() is also happening under same rcu read lock. So I think you can't drop rcu from blkg_lookup_create(). > { > struct blkio_group *blkg, *new_blkg; > > - WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held()); Don't we want to be called with rcu lock held needed for blkg_lookup()? > lockdep_assert_held(q->queue_lock); > > /* [..] > @@ -581,11 +580,9 @@ struct blkio_group *blkg_lookup_create(struct blkio_cgroup *blkcg, > * allocation is fixed. > */ > spin_unlock_irq(q->queue_lock); > - rcu_read_unlock(); > > new_blkg = blkg_alloc(blkcg, q); > > - rcu_read_lock(); > spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock); blkg_alloc() might sleep here with rcu lock held? Thanks Vivek -- 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/