Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:16:34 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
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: <20120217181634.GD29414@google.com>
References: <1329431878-28300-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
 <1329431878-28300-3-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
 <20120217164749.GC26620@redhat.com>
 <20120217171113.GB26575@google.com>
 <20120217172857.GD26620@redhat.com>
 <20120217174304.GC29414@google.com>
 <20120217180800.GE26620@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20120217180800.GE26620@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 874
Lines: 22

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 01:08:00PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > Modifying blkgs require both blkcg and queue locks,
> > so read access can be done holding any lock.
> 
> This is the point I am not getting. How blkg_lookup() is safe just
> under queue lock. What stops freeing up blkg associated with other
> queues. I thought caller needs to hold rcu_read_lock() also to
> make sure it can safely compare blkg->q == q and return the blkg
> belonging to the queue in question.

Ooh, you're right.  I got confused.  We should be holding either blkcg
lock or rcu_read_lock() across blkg_lookup().  Will update.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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/