[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BFC896A.6050306@ct.jp.nec.com>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 11:37:30 +0900
From: Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@...jp.nec.com>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
CC: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>, dm-devel@...hat.com,
Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: avoid unconditionally freeing previously allocated
request_queue
Hi Mike,
On 05/26/2010 01:34 AM +0900, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@...jp.nec.com> wrote:
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Fully initialize a request-based queue (->elevator, ->request_fn, etc).
>>>> + */
>>>> +static int dm_init_request_based_queue(struct mapped_device *md)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct request_queue *q = NULL;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Avoid re-initializing the queue if already fully initialized */
>>>> + if (!md->queue->elevator) {
>>>> + /* Fully initialize the queue */
>>>> + q = blk_init_allocated_queue(md->queue, dm_request_fn, NULL);
>>>> + if (!q)
>>>> + return 0;
>>>
>>> When blk_init_allocated_queue() fails, the block-layer seems not to
>>> guarantee that the queue is still available.
>>
>> Ouch, yes this portion of blk_init_allocated_queue_node() is certainly
>> problematic:
>>
>> if (blk_init_free_list(q)) {
>> kmem_cache_free(blk_requestq_cachep, q);
>> return NULL;
>> }
Not only that. The blk_put_queue() in blk_init_allocated_queue_node()
will also free the queue:
if (!elevator_init(q, NULL)) {
blk_queue_congestion_threshold(q);
return q;
}
blk_put_queue(q);
return NULL;
Thanks,
Kiyoshi Ueda
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists