Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1259977
| From | Roman Gushchin <klamm@yandex-team.ru> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event() |
| Date | 2015-10-31 13:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qpDse-2Li-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <qoWng-1hg-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <qp6PD-7Qh-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <qpixs-6LW-19@gated-at.bofh.it> <qpkIW-84i-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <qpqbE-30S-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Ok, thank you for clarifications!
--
Roman
31.10.2015, 01:17, "Neil Brown" <neilb@suse.de>:
> On Sat, Oct 31 2015, Shaohua Li wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 05:02:47PM +0300, Roman Gushchin wrote:
>>> > Isn't the 4.1 fix just:
>>> >
>>> > diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
>>> > index e5befa356dbe..6e4350a78257 100644
>>> > --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
>>> > +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
>>> > @@ -3522,16 +3522,16 @@ returnbi:
>>> > * no updated data, so remove it from hash list and the stripe
>>> > * will be reinitialized
>>> > */
>>> > - spin_lock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
>>> > unhash:
>>> > + spin_lock_irq(conf->hash_locks + sh->hash_lock_index);
>>> > remove_hash(sh);
>>> > + spin_unlock_irq(conf->hash_locks + sh->hash_lock_index);
>>> > if (head_sh->batch_head) {
>>> > sh = list_first_entry(&sh->batch_list,
>>> > struct stripe_head, batch_list);
>>> > if (sh != head_sh)
>>> > goto unhash;
>>> > }
>>> > - spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
>>> > sh = head_sh;
>>> >
>>> > if (test_bit(STRIPE_SYNC_REQUESTED, &sh->state))
>>> >
>>> > ??
>>>
>>> In my opion, this patch looks correct, although it seems to me, that there is an another issue here.
>>>
>>> > if (head_sh->batch_head) {
>>> > sh = list_first_entry(&sh->batch_list,
>>> > struct stripe_head, batch_list);
>>> > if (sh != head_sh)
>>> > goto unhash;
>>> > }
>>>
>>> With a patch above this code will be executed without taking any locks. It it correct?
>>> In my opinion, we need to take at least sh->stripe_lock, which protects sh->batch_head.
>>> Or do I miss something?
>>>
>>> If you want, we can handle this issue separately.
>>
>> The batch_list list doesn't need the protection. Only the remove_hash() need it.
>
> Yes, that's my understanding too. The key to understanding is that
> comment you (helpfully!) put in clear_batch_ready():
>
> /*
> * BATCH_READY is cleared, no new stripes can be added.
> * batch_list can be accessed without lock
> */
>
> I'll wrangle some patches...
>
> Thanks,
> NeilBrown
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event() Roman Gushchin <klamm@yandex-team.ru> - 2015-10-28 10:00 +0100
Re: [PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event() Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> - 2015-10-29 01:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event() Roman Gushchin <klamm@yandex-team.ru> - 2015-10-29 15:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event() Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> - 2015-10-29 22:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event() Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> - 2015-10-30 02:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event() Roman Gushchin <klamm@yandex-team.ru> - 2015-10-30 15:10 +0100
Re: [PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event() Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org> - 2015-10-30 17:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event() Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de> - 2015-10-30 23:20 +0100
Re: [PATCH] md/raid5: fix locking in handle_stripe_clean_event() Roman Gushchin <klamm@yandex-team.ru> - 2015-10-31 13:30 +0100
csiph-web