[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49fwl6prox.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:36:46 -0400
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...hat.com, msnitzer@...hat.com, vgoyal@...hat.com,
shaohua <shli@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] block: fix flush machinery for stacking drivers with differring flush flags
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> writes:
>> -#define REQ_CLONE_MASK REQ_COMMON_MASK
>> +/*
>> + * Cloned requests are inserted into the elevator via blk_insert_cloned_request.
>> + * Because the flush flags exported by the request-based dm target may in
>> + * theory be different from the flush flags of the underlying request_queue,
>> + * we need to pass along information regarding whether a particular request
>> + * is part of a flush sequence. This is primarily used to complete I/Os early
>> + * that would otherwise not be necessary (such as an empty flush for a request
>> + * queue that does not support flush). In such a case, the end_io path for
>> + * the request would try to account the I/O instead of ignoring it, resulting
>> + * in a null pointer dereference.
>> + */
>> +#define REQ_CLONE_MASK (REQ_COMMON_MASK | REQ_FLUSH_SEQ)
>
> I'm probably missing something, but why do we still need to copy
> REQ_FLUSH_SEQ? Why doesn't the following work?
>
> * dm driver always advertises REQ_FLUSH|FUA like other stacking
> drivers.
>
> * blk-flush for the dm, decomposes flushes to FLUSH + FUA write and
> send it down.
>
> * dm driver clones the requests and send them down to each member
> queue.
>
> * blk-flush on member queue, handles FLUSH as FLUSH and decomposes FUA
> write as necessary.
>
> What am I missing? Why does end_io path still matter when it goes
> through blk-flush on the member device too?
You're missing the I/O completion of an empty flush trying to do I/O
accounting, and oopsing, as shown in the stack trace I provided before.
We could avoid passing REQ_FLUSH_SEQ, and then set it when completing an
empty flush, but I thought that was even worse. Or, maybe we could
clear REQ_IO_STAT when completing such requests.
-Jeff
--
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