linux-kernel - [PATCH -next 17/29] md/raid5: replace suspend with quiesce() callback

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20230803132930.2742286-18-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
Date:   Thu,  3 Aug 2023 21:29:18 +0800
From:   Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
To:     song@...nel.org, xni@...hat.com
Cc:     linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        yukuai3@...wei.com, yukuai1@...weicloud.com, yi.zhang@...wei.com,
        yangerkun@...wei.com
Subject: [PATCH -next 17/29] md/raid5: replace suspend with quiesce() callback

From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>

raid5 is the only personality to suspend array in check_reshape() and
start_reshape() callback, suspend and quiesce() callback can both wait
for all normal io to be done, and prevent new io to be dispatched, the
difference is that suspend is implemented in common layer, and quiesce()
callback is implemented in raid5.

In order to cleanup all the usage of mddev_suspend(), the new apis
__mddev_suspend() need to be called before 'reconfig_mutex' is held,
and it's not good to affect all the personalities in common layer just
for raid5. Hence replace suspend with quiesce() callaback, prepare to
reomove all the users of mddev_suspend().

Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
---
 drivers/md/raid5.c | 18 +++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
index b4b2d0d5855d..4709b7ad0317 100644
--- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
+++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
@@ -70,6 +70,8 @@ MODULE_PARM_DESC(devices_handle_discard_safely,
 		 "Set to Y if all devices in each array reliably return zeroes on reads from discarded regions");
 static struct workqueue_struct *raid5_wq;
 
+static void raid5_quiesce(struct mddev *mddev, int quiesce);
+
 static inline struct hlist_head *stripe_hash(struct r5conf *conf, sector_t sect)
 {
 	int hash = (sect >> RAID5_STRIPE_SHIFT(conf)) & HASH_MASK;
@@ -2492,15 +2494,12 @@ static int resize_chunks(struct r5conf *conf, int new_disks, int new_sectors)
 	unsigned long cpu;
 	int err = 0;
 
-	/*
-	 * Never shrink. And mddev_suspend() could deadlock if this is called
-	 * from raid5d. In that case, scribble_disks and scribble_sectors
-	 * should equal to new_disks and new_sectors
-	 */
+	/* Never shrink. */
 	if (conf->scribble_disks >= new_disks &&
 	    conf->scribble_sectors >= new_sectors)
 		return 0;
-	mddev_suspend(conf->mddev);
+
+	raid5_quiesce(conf->mddev, true);
 	cpus_read_lock();
 
 	for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
@@ -2514,7 +2513,8 @@ static int resize_chunks(struct r5conf *conf, int new_disks, int new_sectors)
 	}
 
 	cpus_read_unlock();
-	mddev_resume(conf->mddev);
+	raid5_quiesce(conf->mddev, false);
+
 	if (!err) {
 		conf->scribble_disks = new_disks;
 		conf->scribble_sectors = new_sectors;
@@ -8550,8 +8550,8 @@ static int raid5_start_reshape(struct mddev *mddev)
 	 * the reshape wasn't running - like Discard or Read - have
 	 * completed.
 	 */
-	mddev_suspend(mddev);
-	mddev_resume(mddev);
+	raid5_quiesce(mddev, true);
+	raid5_quiesce(mddev, false);
 
 	/* Add some new drives, as many as will fit.
 	 * We know there are enough to make the newly sized array work.
-- 
2.39.2