[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170531075209.xrcvxp3uh3yjupiv@moria.home.lan>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 23:52:10 -0800
From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>
To: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@....com>
Cc: shli@...nel.org, axboe@...com, mchristi@...hat.com,
git@...ux.ewheeler.net, colyli@...e.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
wangyijing@...wei.com, mingo@...nel.org, mhocko@...e.com,
linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcache: Fix a sleep-in-atomic bug
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 03:23:40PM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> The driver may sleep under a spin lock, and the function call path is:
> journal_wait_for_write (acquire the lock by spin_lock)
> closure_sync
> schedule --> may sleep
This patch is incorrect, you've introduced a double unlock.
Did you actually observe a sleep in atomic?
>
> To fix it, the lock is released before "closure_sync", and the lock is
> acquired again after this function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@....com>
> ---
> drivers/md/bcache/journal.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/journal.c b/drivers/md/bcache/journal.c
> index 1198e53..ad47c36 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/journal.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/journal.c
> @@ -724,6 +724,7 @@ static struct journal_write *journal_wait_for_write(struct cache_set *c,
> btree_flush_write(c);
> }
>
> + spin_unlock(&c->journal.lock);
> closure_sync(&cl);
> spin_lock(&c->journal.lock);
> wait = true;
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists