[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120217164749.GC26620@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 11:47:49 -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:
[..]
> * queue_lock coverage extended to cover @blkg usage in
> blkio_policy_parse_and_set() and RCU dropped. This means all config
> update callbacks are now called under queue_lock.
>
[..]
> @@ -1041,11 +1034,8 @@ static int blkio_policy_parse_and_set(char *buf, enum blkio_policy_id plid,
> if (!disk || part)
> goto out;
>
> - rcu_read_lock();
> -
> spin_lock_irq(disk->queue->queue_lock);
> blkg = blkg_lookup_create(blkcg, disk->queue, plid, false);
> - spin_unlock_irq(disk->queue->queue_lock);
>
So now in some cases we call blkg_lookup_create() with both queue and rcu
read lock held (cfq_lookup_create_cfqg()) and in this case hold only queue
lock. blkg_lookup_create() calls blkg_lookup() which expects a rcu_read_lock()
to be held and we will be travesing that list without rcu_read_lock()
held. Isn't that a problem? We might be examining a blkg belonging to
a different queue and it might be being freed parallely.
Or blkg destruction in this cgroup is serialized by cgroup_mutex() or
by something else in this policy parse and set path?
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