On 01/10/2018 08:39 PM, 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 <[email protected]>
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
> Cc: Omar Sandoval <[email protected]>
> Cc: Hannes Reinecke <[email protected]>
> Cc: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]>
> ---
>  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);
> +
> +             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
I'm actually not that convinced with this change; originally we had been
checking if it's on the wait list, and only _then_ call bt_wait_ptr().
Now we call bt_wait_ptr() always, meaning we run a chance of increasing
the bitmap_tags wait pointer without actually using it.
Looking at the code I'm not sure this is the correct way of using it ...

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke                Teamlead Storage & Networking
[email protected]                                   +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)

Reply via email to