[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D247B93.2010900@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:09:23 +0100
From: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>
To: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
CC: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_satoru@...fujitsu.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Yasuaki Ishimatsu <isimatu.yasuaki@...fujitsu.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <greg@...ah.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] block: fix accounting bug on cross partition merges
On 01/05/2011 03:00 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2011-01-04 16:55, Jerome Marchand wrote:
>> + } else {
>> + part = disk_map_sector_rcu(rq->rq_disk, blk_rq_pos(rq));
>> + if (!kref_test_and_get(&part->ref)) {
>> + /*
>> + * The partition is already being removed,
>> + * the request will be accounted on the disk only
>> + *
>> + * We take a reference on disk->part0 although that
>> + * partition will never be deleted, so we can treat
>> + * it as any other partition.
>> + */
>> + part = &rq->rq_disk->part0;
>> + kref_get(&part->ref);
>> + }
>
> This still doesn't work. So you are inside the if {} block, you know
> what someone has dropped the last reference and the call_rcu() is being
> scheduled. Adding a reference now will not prevent 'part' from going
> away as soon as you do part_stat_unlock().
And what is the problem with that since we don't use 'part' (as returned
by disk_map_sector_rcu()), but disk->part0 instead?
> As per my last email, you
> need a check in the rcu callback to ensure that the ref is 0.
>
>
--
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