lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH -next 0/4] blk-cgroup: synchronize del_gendisk() with configuring cgroup policy
From
Date
Hi,

在 2022/12/21 0:01, Tejun Heo 写道:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 05:19:12PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
>> Yes, that sounds good. BTW, queue_lock is also used to protect
>> pd_alloc_fn/pd_init_fn,and we found that blkcg_activate_policy() is
>> problematic:
>>
>> blkcg_activate_policy
>> spin_lock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
>> list_for_each_entry_reverse(blkg, &q->blkg_list
>> pd_alloc_fn(GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN,...) -> failed
>>
>> spin_unlock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
>> // release queue_lock here is problematic, this will cause
>> pd_offline_fn called without pd_init_fn.
>> pd_alloc_fn(__GFP_NOWARN,...)
>
> So, if a blkg is destroyed while a policy is being activated, right?
Yes, remove cgroup can race with this, for bfq null pointer deference
will be triggered in bfq_pd_offline().

>
>> If we are using a mutex to protect rq_qos ops, it seems the right thing
>> to do do also using the mutex to protect blkcg_policy ops, and this
>> problem can be fixed because mutex can be held to alloc memroy with
>> GFP_KERNEL. What do you think?
>
> One worry is that switching to mutex can be more headache due to destroy
> path synchronization. Another approach would be using a per-blkg flag to
> track whether a blkg has been initialized.
I think perhaps you mean per blkg_policy_data flag? per blkg flag should
not work in this case.

Thanks,
Kuai
>
> Thanks.
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-03-26 23:16    [W:0.093 / U:1.460 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site