[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110608234530.GA22398@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 16:45:30 -0700
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: Mark Wu <dwu@...hat.com>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
tj@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] [virt] virtio-blk: Use ida to allocate disk index
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 08:51:05AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:08:29 -0400, Mark Wu <dwu@...hat.com> wrote:
> > Hi Rusty,
> > Yes, I can't figure out an instance of disk probing in parallel either, but as
> > per the following commit, I think we still need use lock for safety. What's your opinion?
> >
> > commit 4034cc68157bfa0b6622efe368488d3d3e20f4e6
> > Author: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> > Date: Sat Feb 21 11:04:45 2009 +0900
> >
> > [SCSI] sd: revive sd_index_lock
> >
> > Commit f27bac2761cab5a2e212dea602d22457a9aa6943 which converted sd to
> > use ida instead of idr incorrectly removed sd_index_lock around id
> > allocation and free. idr/ida do have internal locks but they protect
> > their free object lists not the allocation itself. The caller is
> > responsible for that. This missing synchronization led to the same id
> > being assigned to multiple devices leading to oops.
>
> I'm confused. Tejun, Greg, anyone can probes happen in parallel?
>
> If so, I'll have to review all my drivers.
I know we've tried it in the past, at the PCI device level, and ran into
some issues, but I don't remember if that code ever made it into the
mainline kernel or not.
greg k-h
--
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