[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D8CF202.9010809@kernel.dk>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:50:26 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
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 2011-03-25 19:54, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> 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.:
Yes, I was thinking about something like that. I consider the patch
merged an immediate stop gap, we need to improve this situation. It's
not exactly pretty to have this sort of condition in both
__make_request() and flush_plug_list(). Clearly it should be handled
further down.
--
Jens Axboe
--
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