Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753497Ab2E1KVG (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 May 2012 06:21:06 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:54778 "EHLO mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753278Ab2E1KVE (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 May 2012 06:21:04 -0400 Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 19:20:55 +0900 From: Tejun Heo To: Asias He Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Fix lock unbalance caused by lock disconnect Message-ID: <20120528102055.GA15202@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> References: <1337911859-22913-1-git-send-email-asias@redhat.com> <20120528000749.GA8305@dhcp-172-17-108-109.mtv.corp.google.com> <4FC2DFB6.6080701@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FC2DFB6.6080701@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1614 Lines: 39 Hello, Asias. On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:15:18AM +0800, Asias He wrote: > >I don't think the patch description is correct. The lock switcihng is > >inherently broken and the patch doesn't really fix the problem > >although it *might* make the problem less likely. Trying to switch > >locks while there are other accessors of the lock is simply broken, it > >can never work without outer synchronization. > > Since the lock switching is broken, is it a good idea to force all > the drivers to use the block layer provided lock? i.e. Change the > API from > blk_init_queue(rfn, driver_lock) to blk_init_queue(rfn). Any reason > not to use the block layer provided one. I think hch tried to do that a while ago. Dunno what happened to the patches. IIRC, the whole external lock thing was about sharing a single lock across different request_queues. Not sure whether it's actually beneficial enough or just a crazy broken optimization. > >Your patch might make > >the problem somewhat less likely simply because queue draining makes a > >lot of request_queue users go away. > > Who will use the request_queue after blk_cleanup_queue()? Anyone who still holds a ref might try to issue a new request on a dead queue. ie. blkdev with filesystem mounted goes away and the FS issues a new read request after blk_cleanup_queue() finishes drainig. 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/