On Wed, 2018-03-14 at 11:46 -0700, t...@kernel.org wrote:
> > that are ordered with an RCU read lock (https://lwn.net/Articles/573497/).
> > See
> > also the following comment in scsi_device_quiesce():
> >
> > /*
> > * Ensure that the effect of blk_set_preempt_only() will be visible
> > * for percpu_ref_tryget() callers that occur after the queue
> > * unfreeze even if the queue was already frozen before this function
> > * was called. See also https://lwn.net/Articles/573497/.
> > */
> >
> > Since this patch introduces a subtle and hard to debug race condition,
> > please
> > drop this patch.
>
> Hah, the pairing is between scsi_device_quiesce() and
> blk_queue_enter()? But that doesn't make sense either because
> scsi_device_quiesce() is doing regular synchronize_rcu() and
> blk_queue_enter() is doing rcu_read_lock_sched(). They don't
> interlock with each other in any way.
Can you clarify this further? From <linux/rcupdate.h>:
static inline void synchronize_rcu(void)
{
synchronize_sched();
}
> So, the right thing to do here would be somehow moving the RCU
> synchronization into blk_set_preempt_only() and switching to regular
> RCU protection in blk_queue_enter(). The code as-is isn't really
> doing anything.
Since the RCU protection in blk_queue_enter() surrounds a
percpu_ref_tryget_live()
call and since percpu_ref_tryget_live() calls rcu_read_lock/unlock_sched()
itself
I don't think that it is allowed to switch to regular RCU protection in
blk_queue_enter() without modifying the RCU implementation.
Bart.
