[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120828230108.GI1048@moria.home.lan>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 16:01:08 -0700
From: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...hat.com, vgoyal@...hat.com, mpatocka@...hat.com,
bharrosh@...asas.com, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 9/9] block: Avoid deadlocks with bio allocation by
stacking drivers
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 03:28:00PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 01:49:10PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Overall, I *think* this is correct but need to think more about it to
> > be sure.
>
> Please do. As much time as I've spent staring at this kind of stuff,
> I'm pretty sure I've got it correct but it still makes my head hurt to
> work out all the various possible deadlocks.
Hilarious thought: We're punting bios to a rescuer thread that's
specific to a certain bio_set, right? What if we happen to punt bios
from a different bio_set? And then the rescuer goes to resubmit those
bios, and in the process they happen to have dependencies on the
original bio_set...
I think it's actually necessary to filter out only bios from the current
bio_set to punt to the rescuer.
God I love the block layer sometimes.
--
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