[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5bf97ec5-0cb4-1163-6917-2bc98d912c2b@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 15:38:17 +0800
From: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
To: Xiao Ni <xni@...hat.com>, Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
Cc: guoqing.jiang@...ux.dev, agk@...hat.com, snitzer@...nel.org,
dm-devel@...hat.com, song@...nel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
yangerkun@...wei.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
yi.zhang@...wei.com, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH -next v2 4/6] md: refactor
idle/frozen_sync_thread() to fix deadlock
Hi,
在 2023/06/14 15:12, Xiao Ni 写道:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 10:04 AM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 在 2023/06/14 9:48, Yu Kuai 写道:
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> In the patch, sync_seq is added in md_reap_sync_thread. In
>>>> idle_sync_thread, if sync_seq isn't equal
>>>>
>>>> mddev->sync_seq, it should mean there is someone that stops the sync
>>>> thread already, right? Why do
>>>>
>>>> you say 'new started sync thread' here?
>>
>> If someone stops the sync thread, and new sync thread is not started,
>> then this sync_seq won't make a difference, above wait_event() will not
>> wait because !test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING, &mddev->recovery) will pass.
>> So 'sync_seq' is only used when the old sync thread stops and new sync
>> thread starts, add 'sync_seq' will bypass this case.
>
> Hi
>
> If a new sync thread starts, why can sync_seq be different? sync_seq
> is only added in md_reap_sync_thread. And when a new sync request
> starts, it can't stop the sync request again?
>
> Af first, the sync_seq is 0
>
> admin1
> echo idle > sync_action
> idle_sync_thread(sync_seq is 1)
Wait, I'm confused here, how can sync_seq to be 1 here? I suppose you
mean that there is a sync_thread just finished?
Then the problem is that idle_sync_thread() read sync_seq after the old
sync_thread is done, and new sync_thread start before wait_event() is
called, should we wait for this new sync_thread?
My answer here is that we should, but I'm also ok to not wait this new
sync_thread, I don't think this behaviour matters. The key point here
is that once wait_event() is called from idle_sync_thread(), this
wait_event() should not wait for new sync_thread...
> echo resync > sync_action (new sync)
If this is behind "echo idle > sync_action", idle_sync_thread should not
see that MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING is set and wait_event() won't wait at all.
Thanks,
Kuai
>
> Then admin2 echos idle > sync_action, sync_seq is still 1
>
> Regards
> Xiao
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kuai
>>
>
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists