[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120315165057.GB32137@google.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:50:57 -0700
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH block/for-3.4/core] cfq: fix cfqg ref handling when
BLK_CGROUP && !CFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED
Hello,
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:46:21PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 09:35:46AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
>
> [..]
> > ---
> > Yeap, forgot to test that config combination. Fengguang, can you
> > please test this patch? Jens, once Fengguang confirms the fix, can
> > you please apply this on top of for-3.4/core along with the pending
> > stats updates?
>
> I was working on similar patch and you beat me to it. :-) One comment
> below.
:)
> [..]
> > @@ -3533,7 +3551,7 @@ static int cfq_init_queue(struct request
> >
> > spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock);
> > cfq_link_cfqq_cfqg(&cfqd->oom_cfqq, cfqd->root_group);
> > - blkg_put(cfqg_to_blkg(cfqd->root_group));
> > + cfqg_put(cfqd->root_group);
>
> This seems to be a spurious cfqg_put()? Which reference we are putting
> down here?
The extra ref from cfq_link_cfqq_cfqg() for oom_cfqq; otherwise, we
need an extra cfq_put() in cfq_exit_queue(). I thought I wrote
comment about that somewhere. Hmmm.... apparently not. The thing is
that oom_cfqq doesn't go through proper cfqq destruction and thus
never puts the extra ref to root cfqg.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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