[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180515075221.4ppaxdvbosy36ltk@linux-x5ow.site>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 09:52:21 +0200
From: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
Linux NVMe Mailinglist <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailinglist <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] nvme: call nvmf_create_ctrl before checking for
duplicate assignment
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 09:50:55AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 09:40:41AM +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> > In nvmf_dev_write we did check if the /dev/nvme-fabrics device node's
> > private data is already set and then create a controller data
> > structure afterwards. The private data is protected by the
> > nvmf_dev_mutex, but there is no need to hold it while calling
> > nvmf_create_ctrl().
> >
> > This also reduces the number of lockdep complaints in the 'nvme
> > connect' with fcloop scenario.
>
> Something looks seriously fishy in fcloop. How do we and up in
> a RCU critical section here?
__blk_mq_run_hw_queue() calls blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests() with
the hctx_lock() a.k.a rcu_read_lock() held.
nvmf_connect_admin_queue() does I/O which causes the above to be called.
> In general it seems like fc loop needs to offload any I/O to a workqueue
> just like nvme-loop does, but even then I can't see how that is going to
> cause an issue in this area.
Hmm I'll be looking into it.
--
Johannes Thumshirn Storage
jthumshirn@...e.de +49 911 74053 689
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850
Powered by blists - more mailing lists