[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111026203846.GG355@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:38:46 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, ctalbott@...gle.com, rni@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/13] block, cfq: unlink cfq_io_context's immediately
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:55:06PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:48:57PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > + ioc_release_depth_inc(cic->q);
> > > + cic->exit(cic);
> > > + cic->release(cic);
> > > + ioc_release_depth_dec(cic->q);
> >
> > cic->release(cic) can free the cic? Are we accessing cic after freeing it
> > up in ioc_release_depth_dec(cic->q);
>
> As cic is RCU freed and we're running w/ irq disabled, this shouldn't
> blow up, but yeah, I'll update it to use local variable instead.
Tejun,
So the only reason that cic needs to be rcu protected because in
cfq_cic_lookup() we can access ioc->ioc_data which can point to a
cic which is not ours and we are not holding queue lock for that and
we can't access cic->q ?
Rest of the places we are either holding ioc_lock or accessing our
own cic under associated queue lock so it should be safe?
I am wondering if there should be a small text file explaining all
the locking in this area.
Good to see that you are cleaning it all up.
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