[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170704165927.c6dgitftm4v3xk7w@dhcp-3-128.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2017 17:59:27 +0100
From: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>
To: Vincent Legout <vincent.legout@...di.net>
CC: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
<xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen-blkfront: emit KOBJ_OFFLINE uevent when detaching
device
On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 01:48:32PM +0200, Vincent Legout wrote:
> Devices are not unmounted inside a domU after a xl block-detach.
>
> After xl block-detach, blkfront_closing() is called with state ==
> XenbusStateConnected, it detects that the device is still in use and
> only switches state to XenbusStateClosing. blkfront_closing() is called
> a second time but returns immediately because state ==
> XenbusStateClosing. Thus the device keeps being mounted inside the domU.
>
> To fix this, emit a KOBJ_OFFLINE uevent even if the device has users.
>
> With this patch, inside domU, udev has:
>
> KERNEL[16994.526789] offline /devices/vbd-51728/block/xvdb (block)
> KERNEL[16994.796197] remove /devices/virtual/bdi/202:16 (bdi)
> KERNEL[16994.797167] remove /devices/vbd-51728/block/xvdb (block)
> UDEV [16994.798035] remove /devices/virtual/bdi/202:16 (bdi)
> UDEV [16994.809429] offline /devices/vbd-51728/block/xvdb (block)
> UDEV [16994.842365] remove /devices/vbd-51728/block/xvdb (block)
> KERNEL[16995.461991] remove /devices/vbd-51728 (xen)
> UDEV [16995.462549] remove /devices/vbd-51728 (xen)
I'm not an expect on udev, but aren't those messages duplicated? You
seem to get one message from udev and another one from the kernel.
> While without, it had:
>
> KERNEL[30.862764] remove /devices/vbd-51728 (xen)
> UDEV [30.867838] remove /devices/vbd-51728 (xen)
>
> Signed-off-by: Pascal Bouchareine <pascal@...di.net>
> Signed-off-by: Fatih Acar <fatih.acar@...di.net>
> Signed-off-by: Vincent Legout <vincent.legout@...di.net>
>
> drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c b/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c
> index 39459631667c..da0b0444ee1f 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c
> @@ -2185,8 +2185,10 @@ static void blkfront_closing(struct blkfront_info *info)
> mutex_lock(&bdev->bd_mutex);
>
> if (bdev->bd_openers) {
> - xenbus_dev_error(xbdev, -EBUSY,
> - "Device in use; refusing to close");
> + dev_warn(disk_to_dev(info->gd),
> + "detaching %s with pending users\n",
> + xbdev->nodename);
> + kobject_uevent(&disk_to_dev(info->gd)->kobj, KOBJ_OFFLINE);
What happens if you simply remove the xenbus_dev_error but don't add
the kobject_uevent?
I'm asking because I don't see any other block device calling
directly kobject_uevent, and I'm sure this should be pretty similar to
what virtio or USB do when a block device is hot-unplugged.
For example blk_unregister_queue already contains a call to trigger a
kobject_uevent.
Thanks, Roger.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists