Hello,
On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 10:06:05PM +0900, Akinobu Mita wrote:
> >> void blk_mq_finish_init(struct request_queue *q)
> >> {
> >> + mutex_lock(&q->mq_freeze_lock);
> >> percpu_ref_switch_to_percpu(&q->mq_usage_counter);
> >> + mutex_unlock(&q->mq_freeze_lock);
> >
> > This looks weird to me. What can it race against at this point?
>
> The possible scenario is described in commit log (1. ~ 7.). In summary,
> blk_mq_finish_init() and blk_mq_freeze_queue_start() can be executed
> at the same time, so this is required to serialize the execution of
> percpu_ref_switch_to_percpu() by blk_mq_finish_init() and
> percpu_ref_kill() by blk_mq_freeze_queue_start().
Ah, you're right. I was thinking that percpu_ref_switch_to_percpu()
being called after blk_mq_freeze_queue_start() would be buggy and thus
the above can't be enough but that is safe as long as the calls are
properly synchronized. Hmmm... maybe we should add synchronization to
those operations from percpu_ref side.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
