3.2-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------ From: Asias He <as...@redhat.com> commit 2c95a3290919541b846bee3e0fbaa75860929f53 upstream. Block layer will allocate a spinlock for the queue if the driver does not provide one in blk_init_queue(). The reason to use the internal spinlock is that blk_cleanup_queue() will switch to use the internal spinlock in the cleanup code path. if (q->queue_lock != &q->__queue_lock) q->queue_lock = &q->__queue_lock; However, processes which are in D state might have taken the driver provided spinlock, when the processes wake up, they would release the block provided spinlock. ===================================== [ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ] 3.4.0-rc7+ #238 Not tainted ------------------------------------- fio/3587 is trying to release lock (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock) at: [<ffffffff813274d2>] blk_queue_bio+0x2a2/0x380 but there are no more locks to release! other info that might help us debug this: 1 lock held by fio/3587: #0: (&(&vblk->lock)->rlock){......}, at: [<ffffffff8132661a>] get_request_wait+0x19a/0x250 Other drivers use block layer provided spinlock as well, e.g. SCSI. Switching to the block layer provided spinlock saves a bit of memory and does not increase lock contention. Performance test shows no real difference is observed before and after this patch. Changes in v2: Improve commit log as Michael suggested. Cc: virtualizat...@lists.linux-foundation.org Cc: k...@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Asias He <as...@redhat.com> Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <ru...@rustcorp.com.au> [bwh: Backported to 3.2: adjust context] Signed-off-by: Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> --- drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 9 +++------ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c @@ -20,8 +20,6 @@ struct workqueue_struct *virtblk_wq; struct virtio_blk { - spinlock_t lock; - struct virtio_device *vdev; struct virtqueue *vq; @@ -62,7 +60,7 @@ static void blk_done(struct virtqueue *v unsigned int len; unsigned long flags; - spin_lock_irqsave(&vblk->lock, flags); + spin_lock_irqsave(vblk->disk->queue->queue_lock, flags); while ((vbr = virtqueue_get_buf(vblk->vq, &len)) != NULL) { int error; @@ -97,7 +95,7 @@ static void blk_done(struct virtqueue *v } /* In case queue is stopped waiting for more buffers. */ blk_start_queue(vblk->disk->queue); - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&vblk->lock, flags); + spin_unlock_irqrestore(vblk->disk->queue->queue_lock, flags); } static bool do_req(struct request_queue *q, struct virtio_blk *vblk, @@ -384,7 +382,6 @@ static int __devinit virtblk_probe(struc } INIT_LIST_HEAD(&vblk->reqs); - spin_lock_init(&vblk->lock); vblk->vdev = vdev; vblk->sg_elems = sg_elems; sg_init_table(vblk->sg, vblk->sg_elems); @@ -410,7 +407,7 @@ static int __devinit virtblk_probe(struc goto out_mempool; } - q = vblk->disk->queue = blk_init_queue(do_virtblk_request, &vblk->lock); + q = vblk->disk->queue = blk_init_queue(do_virtblk_request, NULL); if (!q) { err = -ENOMEM; goto out_put_disk; -- 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/