[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120217161958.GB26620@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:19:58 -0500
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 2/9] blkcg: drop unnecessary RCU locking
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 02:37:51PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Now that blkg additions / removals are always done under both q and
> blkcg locks, the only place RCU locking is used is blkg_lookup() for
> lockless lookup. This patch drops unncessary RCU locking replacing it
> with plain blkcg / q locking as necessary.
>
> * blkg_lookup_create() and blkiocg_pre_destroy() already perform
> proper locking and don't need RCU. Dropped.
But blkg_lookup_create() is called under rcu() to protect blkcg pointer.
And blkg_lookup() is also happening under same rcu read lock. So I think
you can't drop rcu from blkg_lookup_create().
> {
> struct blkio_group *blkg, *new_blkg;
>
> - WARN_ON_ONCE(!rcu_read_lock_held());
Don't we want to be called with rcu lock held needed for blkg_lookup()?
> lockdep_assert_held(q->queue_lock);
>
> /*
[..]
> @@ -581,11 +580,9 @@ struct blkio_group *blkg_lookup_create(struct blkio_cgroup *blkcg,
> * allocation is fixed.
> */
> spin_unlock_irq(q->queue_lock);
> - rcu_read_unlock();
>
> new_blkg = blkg_alloc(blkcg, q);
>
> - rcu_read_lock();
> spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock);
blkg_alloc() might sleep here with rcu lock held?
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