[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 21:14:36 +0200
From: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc: mst@...hat.com, jasowang@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] vhost: Provide a kernel warning if mutex is held
whilst clean-up in progress
On Thu, Mar 03, 2022 at 03:19:29PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> All workers/users should be halted before any clean-up should take place.
>
> Suggested-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@...hat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
> ---
> drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> index bbaff6a5e21b8..d935d2506963f 100644
> --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> @@ -693,6 +693,9 @@ void vhost_dev_cleanup(struct vhost_dev *dev)
> int i;
>
> for (i = 0; i < dev->nvqs; ++i) {
> + /* Ideally all workers should be stopped prior to clean-up */
> + WARN_ON(mutex_is_locked(&dev->vqs[i]->mutex));
> +
> mutex_lock(&dev->vqs[i]->mutex);
I know nothing about vhost, but this construction and patch looks
strange to me.
If all workers were stopped, you won't need mutex_lock(). The mutex_lock
here suggests to me that workers can still run here.
Thanks
> if (dev->vqs[i]->error_ctx)
> eventfd_ctx_put(dev->vqs[i]->error_ctx);
> --
> 2.35.1.574.g5d30c73bfb-goog
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists