linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/6] mq-deadline: switch to use high layer elevator lock

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: <94ad996f-3947-493d-8ac0-5ca1c03dc9a8@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 11:38:25 +0900
From: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>, hare@...e.de, tj@...nel.org,
 josef@...icpanda.com, axboe@...nel.dk
Cc: cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yi.zhang@...wei.com, yangerkun@...wei.com,
 johnny.chenyi@...wei.com, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] mq-deadline: switch to use high layer elevator lock

On 7/23/25 11:07 AM, Yu Kuai wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 在 2025/07/23 9:46, Damien Le Moal 写道:
>> On 7/22/25 4:24 PM, Yu Kuai wrote:
>>> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>>>
>>> Introduce a new spinlock in elevator_queue, and switch dd->lock to
>>> use the new lock. There are no functional changes.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>>> ---
>>>   block/elevator.c    |  1 +
>>>   block/elevator.h    |  4 ++--
>>>   block/mq-deadline.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>>>   3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/block/elevator.c b/block/elevator.c
>>> index ab22542e6cf0..91df270d9d91 100644
>>> --- a/block/elevator.c
>>> +++ b/block/elevator.c
>>> @@ -144,6 +144,7 @@ struct elevator_queue *elevator_alloc(struct
>>> request_queue *q,
>>>       eq->type = e;
>>>       kobject_init(&eq->kobj, &elv_ktype);
>>>       mutex_init(&eq->sysfs_lock);
>>> +    spin_lock_init(&eq->lock);
>>>       hash_init(eq->hash);
>>>         return eq;
>>> diff --git a/block/elevator.h b/block/elevator.h
>>> index a07ce773a38f..cbbac4f7825c 100644
>>> --- a/block/elevator.h
>>> +++ b/block/elevator.h
>>> @@ -110,12 +110,12 @@ struct request *elv_rqhash_find(struct request_queue
>>> *q, sector_t offset);
>>>   /*
>>>    * each queue has an elevator_queue associated with it
>>>    */
>>> -struct elevator_queue
>>> -{
>>> +struct elevator_queue {
>>>       struct elevator_type *type;
>>>       void *elevator_data;
>>>       struct kobject kobj;
>>>       struct mutex sysfs_lock;
>>> +    spinlock_t lock;
>>>       unsigned long flags;
>>>       DECLARE_HASHTABLE(hash, ELV_HASH_BITS);
>>>   };
>>
>> I wonder if the above should not be its own patch, and the remaining below
>> staying in this patch as that match exactly the commit title.
> 
> I think you mean *should be it's own patch*. I don't have preference and

Yes, that is what I meant. Sorry about the typo.

> I can do that in the next version :)
> 
> Thanks,
> Kuai
> 
> 


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research