[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140321084128.3f499e5c@tlielax.poochiereds.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2014 08:41:28 -0400
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@...rsoft.ru>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-cifs <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lclaudio@...g.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, uobergfe@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] cifs: Fix possible deadlock with cifs and work
queues
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 08:17:06 -0400
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 12:32:12 +0400
> Pavel Shilovsky <piastry@...rsoft.ru> wrote:
>
>
> > Read and write codepaths both obtain lock_sem for read and then wait
> > for cifsiod_wq to complete and release lock_sem. They don't do any
> > lock_sem operations inside their work task queued to cifsiod_wq. But
> > oplock code can obtain/release lock_sem in its work task. So, that's
> > why I agree with Jeff and suggest to move the oplock code to a
> > different work queue (cifsioopd_wq?) but leave read and write
> > codepaths use cifsiod_wq.
>
> OK, how about I submit a second patch that moves the reader and writer
> to its own "safe" workqueue?
>
> -- Steve
>
That'd probably work fine too. The main point is to make sure oplock
breaks run on a different workqueue from where read or write completion
jobs run since they are operating on the lock_sem. The other jobs that
get queued to cifsiod_wq don't touch the lock_sem and shouldn't be a
problem.
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
--
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