From: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com>
To: "tj@kernel.org" <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
"nborisov@suse.com" <nborisov@suse.com>,
"axboe@kernel.dk" <axboe@kernel.dk>, "shli@fb.com" <shli@fb.com>,
"gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"00moses.alexander00@gmail.com" <00moses.alexander00@gmail.com>,
"arnd@arndb.de" <arnd@arndb.de>,
"joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com" <joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] blk-cgroup: remove entries in blkg_tree before queue release
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 17:06:41 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <398bad36e2f01e37645a36d052d62136766ee88d.camel@wdc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180411170018.GL793541@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 10:00 -0700, tj@kernel.org wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 04:42:55PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 07:56 -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > And looking at the change, it looks like the right thing we should
> > > have done is caching @lock on the print_blkg side and when switching
> > > locks make sure both locks are held. IOW, do the following in
> > > blk_cleanup_queue()
> > >
> > > spin_lock_irq(lock);
> > > if (q->queue_lock != &q->__queue_lock) {
> > > spin_lock(&q->__queue_lock);
> > > q->queue_lock = &q->__queue_lock;
> > > spin_unlock(&q->__queue_lock);
> > > }
> > > spin_unlock_irq(lock);
> > >
> > > Otherwise, there can be two lock holders thinking they have exclusive
> > > access to the request_queue.
> >
> > I think that's a bad idea. A block driver is allowed to destroy the
> > spinlock it associated with the request queue as soon as blk_cleanup_queue()
> > has finished. If the block cgroup controller would cache a pointer to the
> > block driver spinlock then that could cause the cgroup code to attempt to
> > lock a spinlock after it has been destroyed. I don't think we need that kind
> > of race conditions.
>
> I see, but that problem is there with or without caching as long as we
> have queu_lock usage which reach beyond cleanup_queue, right? Whether
> that user caches the lock for matching unlocking or not doesn't really
> change the situation.
>
> Short of adding protection around queue_lock switching, I can't think
> of a solution tho. Probably the right thing to do is adding queue
> lock/unlock helpers which are safe to use beyond cleanup_queue.
Hello Tejun,
A simple and effective solution is to dissociate a request queue from the
block cgroup controller before blk_cleanup_queue() returns. This is why commit
a063057d7c73 ("block: Fix a race between request queue removal and the block
cgroup controller") moved the blkcg_exit_queue() call from __blk_release_queue()
into blk_cleanup_queue().
Thanks,
Bart.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-11 17:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-07 10:21 Alexandru Moise
2018-04-09 22:09 ` Tejun Heo
2018-04-11 10:12 ` Alexandru Moise
2018-04-11 14:20 ` Tejun Heo
2018-04-11 14:28 ` Alexandru Moise
2018-04-11 14:46 ` Tejun Heo
2018-04-11 14:51 ` Tejun Heo
2018-04-11 14:56 ` Tejun Heo
2018-04-11 16:42 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-04-11 17:00 ` tj
2018-04-11 17:06 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2018-04-11 17:15 ` tj
2018-04-11 17:26 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-04-11 17:30 ` tj
2018-04-11 15:54 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-04-11 19:00 ` Alexandru Moise
2018-04-11 19:55 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-04-11 19:57 ` tj
2018-04-11 20:00 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-04-11 20:02 ` tj
2018-04-11 20:23 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-04-11 21:23 ` Alexandru Moise
2018-04-11 21:28 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-04-11 22:58 ` Alexandru Moise
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=398bad36e2f01e37645a36d052d62136766ee88d.camel@wdc.com \
--to=bart.vanassche@wdc.com \
--cc=00moses.alexander00@gmail.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nborisov@suse.com \
--cc=shli@fb.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome