[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110325185455.GA2969@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:54:56 -0400
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
tj@...nel.org, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: elevator private data for REQ_FLUSH
On Fri, Mar 25 2011 at 11:50am -0400,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
> On 2011-03-25 16:40, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 25 2011 at 11:22am -0400,
> > Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2011.03.25 at 17:15 +0200, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> Commit
> >>> 9d5a4e946ce5352f19400b6370f4cd8e72806278
> >>> block: skip elevator data initialization for flush requests
> >>>
> >>> Skip elevator initialization for flush requests by passing priv=0 to
> >>> blk_alloc_request() in get_request(). As such elv_set_request() is
> >>> never called for flush requests.
> >>>
> >>> introduced priv flag, to skip elevator_private data init for FLUSH requests.
> >>> This, I guess, lead to NULL pointer deref on my machine in cfq_insert_request,
> >>> which requires elevator_private to be set:
> >>>
> >>> 1 [ 78.982169] Call Trace:
> >>> 2 [ 78.982178] [<ffffffff8122d1fe>] cfq_insert_request+0x4e/0x47d
> >>> 3 [ 78.982184] [<ffffffff8123e139>] ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x6b/0x122
> >>
> >>> Should we in that case use ELEVATOR_INSERT_FLUSH for REQ_FLUSH | REQ_FUA requests
> >>> (like below)?
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>>
> >>> block/elevator.c | 2 ++
> >>> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/block/elevator.c b/block/elevator.c
> >>> index c387d31..b17e577 100644
> >>> --- a/block/elevator.c
> >>> +++ b/block/elevator.c
> >>> @@ -734,6 +734,8 @@ void __elv_add_request(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq, int where)
> >>> q->end_sector = rq_end_sector(rq);
> >>> q->boundary_rq = rq;
> >>> }
> >>> + } else if (rq->cmd_flags & (REQ_FLUSH | REQ_FUA)) {
> >>> + where = ELEVATOR_INSERT_FLUSH;
> >>> } else if (!(rq->cmd_flags & REQ_ELVPRIV) &&
> >>> where == ELEVATOR_INSERT_SORT)
> >>> where = ELEVATOR_INSERT_BACK;
> >>
> >> Thanks. That solves all (corruption-) problems that I reported earlier in an other
> >> thread.
> >
> > So the flush-merge changes introduced ELEVATOR_INSERT_FLUSH (via commit
> > ae1b1539). And the flush bio will now get ELEVATOR_INSERT_FLUSH in
> > __make_request().
> >
> > So it is interesting that the flush is getting inserted in the elevator
> > at all. AFAIK that shouldn't be (and historically hasn't been) the
> > case.
> >
> > Combination of onstack plug changes?
>
> It is, it forces a sort insert. I'll fix this up, I'm relieved we have a
> good handle on this issue now.
Should we also add a safety net to avoid the potential for future silent
corruption, etc? E.g.:
---
block/elevator.c | 3 +++
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/elevator.c b/block/elevator.c
index c387d31..86d258e 100644
--- a/block/elevator.c
+++ b/block/elevator.c
@@ -657,6 +657,9 @@ void elv_quiesce_end(struct request_queue *q)
void elv_insert(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq, int where)
{
+ BUG_ON(rq->cmd_flags & (REQ_FLUSH | REQ_FUA) &&
+ where != ELEVATOR_INSERT_FLUSH);
+
trace_block_rq_insert(q, rq);
rq->q = q;
--
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