linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] xen/blkback: Support 'feature-barrier' aka old-style BARRIER requests.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <4E9C3B39020000780005BA5D@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Date:	Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:27:05 +0100
From:	"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To:	"Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
Cc:	<hch@...radead.org>, <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] xen/blkback: Support 'feature-barrier' aka
	 old-style BARRIER requests.

>>> On 10.10.11 at 17:28, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com> wrote:
> We emulate the barrier requests by draining the outstanding bio's
> and then sending the WRITE_FLUSH command. To drain the I/Os
> we use the refcnt that is used during disconnect to wait for all
> the I/Os before disconnecting from the frontend. We latch on its
> value and if it reaches either the threshold for disconnect or when
> there are no more outstanding I/Os, then we have drained all I/Os.
> 
> Suggested-by: Christopher Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
> Signed-off-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
> ---
>  drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c |   37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>  drivers/block/xen-blkback/common.h  |    5 ++++
>  drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c  |   18 +++++++++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c 
> b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> index e0dab61..184b133 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> @@ -452,6 +452,23 @@ static void xen_blk_discard(struct xen_blkif *blkif, 
> struct blkif_request *req)
>  	make_response(blkif, req->id, req->operation, status);
>  }
>  
> +static void xen_blk_drain_io(struct xen_blkif *blkif)
> +{
> +	atomic_set(&blkif->drain, 1);
> +	do {
> +		wait_for_completion_interruptible_timeout(
> +				&blkif->drain_complete, HZ);
> +
> +		if (!atomic_read(&blkif->drain))
> +			break;
> +		/* The initial value is one, and one refcnt taken at the
> +		 * start of the xen_blkif_schedule thread. */
> +		if (atomic_read(&blkif->refcnt) <= 2)
> +			break;

Shouldn't this test be done the very first thing in the loop? It looks
racy the way it's placed now, and it would incur a 1 sec stall if this
was the only request currently being processed (as no completion
of ane earlier request could signal completion).

Jan

> +	} while (!kthread_should_stop());
> +	atomic_set(&blkif->drain, 0);
> +}


--
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/