> From: [email protected] [mailto:linux-block- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Dexuan Cui > Sent: Friday, February 3, 2017 20:23 > To: Hannes Reinecke <[email protected]>; Bart Van Assche > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: RE: [PATCH] genhd: Do not hold event lock when scheduling workqueue > elements > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:linux-kernel- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Hannes Reinecke > > Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2017 00:15 > > To: Bart Van Assche <[email protected]>; [email protected]; > > [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] genhd: Do not hold event lock when scheduling > workqueue > > elements > > > > On 01/31/2017 01:31 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > > On Wed, 2017-01-18 at 10:48 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > > >> @@ -1488,26 +1487,13 @@ static unsigned long > > disk_events_poll_jiffies(struct gendisk *disk) > > >> void disk_block_events(struct gendisk *disk) > > >> { > > >> struct disk_events *ev = disk->ev; > > >> - unsigned long flags; > > >> - bool cancel; > > >> > > >> if (!ev) > > >> return; > > >> > > >> - /* > > >> - * Outer mutex ensures that the first blocker completes canceling > > >> - * the event work before further blockers are allowed to finish. > > >> - */ > > >> - mutex_lock(&ev->block_mutex); > > >> - > > >> - spin_lock_irqsave(&ev->lock, flags); > > >> - cancel = !ev->block++; > > >> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ev->lock, flags); > > >> - > > >> - if (cancel) > > >> + if (atomic_inc_return(&ev->block) == 1) > > >> cancel_delayed_work_sync(&disk->ev->dwork); > > >> > > >> - mutex_unlock(&ev->block_mutex); > > >> } > > > > > > Hello Hannes, > > > > > > I have already encountered a few times a deadlock that was caused by the > > > event checking code so I agree with you that it would be a big step > > > forward > > > if such deadlocks wouldn't occur anymore. However, this patch realizes a > > > change that has not been described in the patch description, namely that > > > disk_block_events() calls are no longer serialized. Are you sure it is > > > safe > > > to drop the serialization of disk_block_events() calls? > > > > > Well, this whole synchronization stuff it a bit weird; I so totally fail > > to see the rationale for it. > > But anyway, once we've converted ev->block to atomics I _think_ the > > mutex_lock can remain; will be checking. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Hannes > > -- > > Hi, I think I got the same calltrace with today's linux-next (next-20170203). > > The issue happened every time when my Linux virtual machine booted and > Hannes's patch could NOT help. > > The calltrace is pasted below. > > -- Dexuan Any news on this thread?
The issue is still blocking Linux from booting up normally in my test. :-( Have we identified the faulty patch? If so, at least I can try to revert it to boot up. Thanks, -- Dexuan
