On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 12:12:20PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 06:41:56AM -0400, Mark Wu wrote:
> > On 06/09/2011 05:14 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 08:51:05AM +0930, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:08:29 -0400, Mark Wu <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>> Hi Rusty,
> > >>> Yes, I can't figure out an instance of disk probing in parallel either,
> > >>> but as
> > >>> per the following commit, I think we still need use lock for safety.
> > >>> What's your opinion?
> > >>>
> > >>> commit 4034cc68157bfa0b6622efe368488d3d3e20f4e6
> > >>> Author: Tejun Heo <[email protected]>
> > >>> Date: Sat Feb 21 11:04:45 2009 +0900
> > >>>
> > >>> [SCSI] sd: revive sd_index_lock
> > >>>
> > >>> Commit f27bac2761cab5a2e212dea602d22457a9aa6943 which converted sd
> > >>> to
> > >>> use ida instead of idr incorrectly removed sd_index_lock around id
> > >>> allocation and free. idr/ida do have internal locks but they
> > >>> protect
> > >>> their free object lists not the allocation itself. The caller is
> > >>> responsible for that. This missing synchronization led to the same
> > >>> id
> > >>> being assigned to multiple devices leading to oops.
> > >>
> > >> I'm confused. Tejun, Greg, anyone can probes happen in parallel?
> > >>
> > >> If so, I'll have to review all my drivers.
> > >
> > > Unless async is explicitly used, probe happens sequentially. IOW, if
> > > there's no async_schedule() call, things won't happen in parallel.
> > > That said, I think it wouldn't be such a bad idea to protect ida with
> > > spinlock regardless unless the probe code explicitly requires
> > > serialization.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > Since virtio blk driver doesn't use async probe, it needn't use spinlock to
> > protect ida.
> > So remove the lock from patch.
> >
> > >From fbb396df9dbf8023f1b268be01b43529a3993d57 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Mark Wu <[email protected]>
> > Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 06:34:07 -0400
> > Subject: [PATCH 1/1] [virt] virtio-blk: Use ida to allocate disk index
> >
> > Current index allocation in virtio-blk is based on a monotonically
> > increasing variable "index". It could cause some confusion about disk
> > name in the case of hot-plugging disks. And it's impossible to find the
> > lowest available index by just maintaining a simple index. So it's
> > changed to use ida to allocate index via referring to the index
> > allocation in scsi disk.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mark Wu <[email protected]>
>
> Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <[email protected]>
>
> This got lost in the noise and missed 3.1 which is unfortunate.
> How about we apply this as is and look at cleanups as a next step?
Rusty, any opinion on merging this for 3.2?
I expect merge window will open right after the summit,
so need to decide soon ...
> > ---
> > drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> > 1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > index 079c088..bf81ab6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > @@ -8,10 +8,13 @@
> > #include <linux/scatterlist.h>
> > #include <linux/string_helpers.h>
> > #include <scsi/scsi_cmnd.h>
> > +#include <linux/idr.h>
> >
> > #define PART_BITS 4
> >
> > -static int major, index;
> > +static int major;
> > +static DEFINE_IDA(vd_index_ida);
> > +
> > struct workqueue_struct *virtblk_wq;
> >
> > struct virtio_blk
> > @@ -23,6 +26,7 @@ struct virtio_blk
> >
> > /* The disk structure for the kernel. */
> > struct gendisk *disk;
> > + u32 index;
> >
> > /* Request tracking. */
> > struct list_head reqs;
> > @@ -343,12 +347,23 @@ static int __devinit virtblk_probe(struct
> > virtio_device *vdev)
> > struct request_queue *q;
> > int err;
> > u64 cap;
> > - u32 v, blk_size, sg_elems, opt_io_size;
> > + u32 v, blk_size, sg_elems, opt_io_size, index;
> > u16 min_io_size;
> > u8 physical_block_exp, alignment_offset;
> >
> > - if (index_to_minor(index) >= 1 << MINORBITS)
> > - return -ENOSPC;
> > + do {
> > + if (!ida_pre_get(&vd_index_ida, GFP_KERNEL))
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > + err = ida_get_new(&vd_index_ida, &index);
> > + } while (err == -EAGAIN);
> > +
> > + if (err)
> > + return err;
> > +
> > + if (index_to_minor(index) >= 1 << MINORBITS) {
> > + err = -ENOSPC;
> > + goto out_free_index;
> > + }
> >
> > /* We need to know how many segments before we allocate. */
> > err = virtio_config_val(vdev, VIRTIO_BLK_F_SEG_MAX,
> > @@ -421,7 +436,7 @@ static int __devinit virtblk_probe(struct virtio_device
> > *vdev)
> > vblk->disk->private_data = vblk;
> > vblk->disk->fops = &virtblk_fops;
> > vblk->disk->driverfs_dev = &vdev->dev;
> > - index++;
> > + vblk->index = index;
> >
> > /* configure queue flush support */
> > if (virtio_has_feature(vdev, VIRTIO_BLK_F_FLUSH))
> > @@ -516,6 +531,8 @@ out_free_vq:
> > vdev->config->del_vqs(vdev);
> > out_free_vblk:
> > kfree(vblk);
> > +out_free_index:
> > + ida_remove(&vd_index_ida, index);
> > out:
> > return err;
> > }
> > @@ -538,6 +555,7 @@ static void __devexit virtblk_remove(struct
> > virtio_device *vdev)
> > mempool_destroy(vblk->pool);
> > vdev->config->del_vqs(vdev);
> > kfree(vblk);
> > + ida_remove(&vd_index_ida, vblk->index);
> > }
> >
> > static const struct virtio_device_id id_table[] = {
> > --
> > 1.7.1
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> > the body of a message to [email protected]
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
