On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:39:19AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> Both add_wait_queue() and blk_mq_dispatch_wake() protect wait queue
> manipulations with the wait queue lock. Hence also protect the
> !list_empty(&wait->entry) test with the wait queue lock instead of
> the hctx lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanass...@wdc.com>
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de>
> Cc: Omar Sandoval <osan...@fb.com>
> Cc: Hannes Reinecke <h...@suse.de>
> Cc: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumsh...@suse.de>
> ---
> block/blk-mq.c | 19 +++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> index e770e8814f60..d5313ce60836 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> @@ -1184,7 +1184,7 @@ static bool blk_mq_mark_tag_wait(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx
> **hctx,
> bool shared_tags = (this_hctx->flags & BLK_MQ_F_TAG_SHARED) != 0;
> struct sbq_wait_state *ws;
> wait_queue_entry_t *wait;
> - bool ret;
> + bool on_wait_list, ret;
>
> if (!shared_tags) {
> if (!test_bit(BLK_MQ_S_SCHED_RESTART, &this_hctx->state))
> @@ -1204,13 +1204,15 @@ static bool blk_mq_mark_tag_wait(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx
> **hctx,
> if (!list_empty_careful(&wait->entry))
> return false;
>
> - spin_lock(&this_hctx->lock);
> - if (!list_empty(&wait->entry)) {
> - spin_unlock(&this_hctx->lock);
> + ws = bt_wait_ptr(&this_hctx->tags->bitmap_tags, this_hctx);
> +
> + spin_lock_irq(&ws->wait.lock);
> + on_wait_list = !list_empty(&wait->entry);
> + spin_unlock_irq(&ws->wait.lock);
This isn't quite right. There's no guarantee that the struct
sbq_wait_state returned by bt_wait_ptr() is the same one that the wait
entry is on, so the lock on the returned ws->wait isn't necessarily
protecting the wait entry. I think we should just be using
list_empty_careful() in this case.
> +
> + if (on_wait_list)
> return false;
> - }
>
> - ws = bt_wait_ptr(&this_hctx->tags->bitmap_tags, this_hctx);
> add_wait_queue(&ws->wait, wait);
> /*
> * It's possible that a tag was freed in the window between the
> @@ -1218,10 +1220,8 @@ static bool blk_mq_mark_tag_wait(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx
> **hctx,
> * queue.
> */
> ret = blk_mq_get_driver_tag(rq, hctx, false);
> - if (!ret) {
> - spin_unlock(&this_hctx->lock);
> + if (!ret)
> return false;
> - }
>
> /*
> * We got a tag, remove ourselves from the wait queue to ensure
> @@ -1230,7 +1230,6 @@ static bool blk_mq_mark_tag_wait(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx
> **hctx,
> spin_lock_irq(&ws->wait.lock);
> list_del_init(&wait->entry);
> spin_unlock_irq(&ws->wait.lock);
> - spin_unlock(&this_hctx->lock);
> }
> return ret;
> }
> --
> 2.15.1
>
