lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <079108ce-6ca0-800e-e3df-29d015a4530c@grimberg.me> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 22:57:58 -0700 From: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me> To: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org> Cc: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>, linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, James Smart <james.smart@...adcom.com>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>, Wen Xiong <wenxiong@...ibm.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/8] nvme-tcp: Update number of hardware queues before using them >> On 8/9/21 1:52 AM, Daniel Wagner wrote: >>> Hi Sagi, >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 12:57:17PM -0700, Sagi Grimberg wrote: >>>>> - ret = nvme_tcp_start_io_queues(ctrl); >>>>> - if (ret) >>>>> - goto out_cleanup_connect_q; >>>>> - >>>>> - if (!new) { >>>>> - nvme_start_queues(ctrl); >>>>> + } else if (prior_q_cnt != ctrl->queue_count) { >>>> >>>> So if the queue count did not change we don't wait to make sure >>>> the queue g_usage_counter ref made it to zero? What guarantees that it >>>> did? >>> >>> Hmm, good point. we should always call nvme_wait_freeze_timeout() >>> for !new queues. Is this what you are implying? >> >> I think we should always wait for the freeze to complete. > > Don't the queues need to be started in order for the freeze to complete? > Any enqueued requests on the quiesced queues will never complete this > way, so the wait_freeze() will be stuck, right? If so, I think the > nvme_start_queues() was in the correct place already. Exactly what I was trying to point out (poorly though)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists