[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110712185429.GK1293@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 14:54:29 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>
Cc: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
Roland Dreier <roland@...nel.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
Steffen Maier <maier@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Manvanthara B. Puttashankar" <manvanth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Tarak Reddy <tarak.reddy@...ibm.com>,
"Seshagiri N. Ippili" <sesh17@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: Check that queue is alive in
blk_insert_cloned_request()
On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 01:28:18PM -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
[..]
> > > I'm starting to wonder if there's actually any value to
> > > blk_cleanup_queue() and whether its functionality wouldn't be better
> > > assumed by the queue release function on last put.
> >
> > I think one problem point is q->queue_lock. If driver drops its reference
> > on queue and cleans up its data structures, then it will free up memory
> > associated with q->queue_lock too. (If driver provided its own queue
> > lock). In that case anything which is dependent on queue lock, needs
> > to be freed up on blk_cleanup_queue().
>
> I don't quite follow. blk_cleanup_queue() doesn't free anything (well,
> except the elevator). Final put will free the queue structure which
> contains the lock, but if it's really a final put, you have no other
> possible references, so no-one is using the lock ... well, assuming
> there isn't a programming error, of course ...
>
> > If we can make sure that request queue reference will keep the spin lock
> > alive, then i guess all cleanup part might be able to go in release
> > queue function.
>
> As I said: cleanup doesn't free the structure containing the lock,
> release does, so that piece wouldn't be altered by putting
> blk_cleanup_queue() elsewhere.
I thought a driver could either rely on spin lock provided by request
queue or override that by providing its own spinlock.
blk_init_allocated_queue_node()
/* Override internal queue lock with supplied lock pointer */
if (lock)
q->queue_lock = lock;
So if driver calls blk_cleanup_queue() and drops its reference on queue, then
it should be free to release any memory it has allocated for spinlock.
So though queue is around there are no gurantees that q->queue_lock is
still around. That memory might have been freed by driver and reused.
I see many drivers are providing their own locks. Some samples from
drivers/block.
/virtio_blk.c: q = vblk->disk->queue = blk_init_queue(do_virtblk_request,
&vblk->lock);
./xd.c: xd_queue = blk_init_queue(do_xd_request, &xd_lock);
./cpqarray.c: q = blk_init_queue(do_ida_request, &hba[i]->lock);
./sx8.c: q = blk_init_queue(carm_rq_fn, &host->lock);
./sx8.c: q = blk_init_queue(carm_oob_rq_fn, &host->lock);
./floppy.c: disks[dr]->queue = blk_init_queue(do_fd_request, &floppy_lock);
./viodasd.c: q = blk_init_queue(do_viodasd_request, &d->q_lock);
./cciss.c: disk->queue = blk_init_queue(do_cciss_request, &h->lock);
./hd.c: hd_queue = blk_init_queue(do_hd_request, &hd_lock);
./DAC960.c: RequestQueue = blk_init_queue(DAC960_RequestFunction,&Controller->queue_lock);
./z2ram.c: z2_queue = blk_init_queue(do_z2_request, &z2ram_lock);
./amiflop.c: disk->queue = blk_init_queue(do_fd_request, &amiflop_lock);
./xen-blkfront.c: rq = blk_init_queue(do_blkif_request, &blkif_io_lock);
./paride/pd.c: pd_queue = blk_init_queue(do_pd_request, &pd_lock);
./paride/pf.c: pf_queue = blk_init_queue(do_pf_request, &pf_spin_lock);
./paride/pcd.c: pcd_queue = blk_init_queue(do_pcd_request, &pcd_lock);
./mg_disk.c: host->breq = blk_init_queue(mg_request_poll, &host->lock);
./mg_disk.c: host->breq = blk_init_queue(mg_request, &host->lock);
./rbd.c: q = blk_init_queue(rbd_rq_fn, &rbd_dev->lock);
./sunvdc.c: q = blk_init_queue(do_vdc_request, &port->vio.lock);
./swim.c: swd->queue = blk_init_queue(do_fd_request, &swd->lock);
./xsysace.c: ace->queue = blk_init_queue(ace_request, &ace->lock);
./osdblk.c: q = blk_init_queue(osdblk_rq_fn, &osdev->lock);
./ps3disk.c: queue = blk_init_queue(ps3disk_request, &priv->lock);
./swim3.c: swim3_queue = blk_init_queue(do_fd_request, &swim3_lock);
./ub.c: if ((q = blk_init_queue(ub_request_fn, sc->lock)) == NULL)
./nbd.c: disk->queue = blk_init_queue(do_nbd_request, &nbd_lock);
Thanks
Vivek
--
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