[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [dm-devel] [RFC PATCH 2/2] dm: only initialize full request_queue for request-based device



On Thu, May 20 2010 at  7:21am -0400,
Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda ct jp nec com> wrote:

> Hi Mike,
> 
> On 05/19/2010 11:39 PM +0900, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > Thanks again for pointing this out; I'll work to arrive at an
> > alternative locking scheme.  Likely introduce a lock local to the
> > multiple_device (effectively the 'queue_lock' I had before).  But
> > difference is I'd take that lock before taking _hash_lock.
> 
> You have to see do_resume(), too.
> do_resume() gets hc->new_map with _hash_lock held but without your
> 'queue_lock' held.  This could cause inconsistent status;
>   table_load() for bio-based table    do_resume() for rq-based table
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------
>   dm_lock_md_queue(md)
>   dm_table_setup_md_queue(t) (<= bio-based)
>     dm_clear_request_based_queue(md)
>       md->queue->request_fn = NULL
>                                        down_write(_hash_lock)
>                                        new_map = hc->new_map (<= rq-based)
>                                        up_write(_hash_lock)
>                                        dm_swap_table(md, new_map)
>                                        __bind(md, new_map) (<= rq-based)
>   down_write(_hash_lock)
>   hc->new_map = t
>   up_write(_hash_lock)
>   dm_unlock_md_queue(md)

Understood.

> Other ioctls might be as well, since I have checked only interaction
> between table load and resume.

Table load and resume should be the only ioctls that are relevant.

> > I hope to have v6 available at some point today but it may be delayed by
> > a day.
> 
> Sorry for repeating but since you are trying to change the current dm
> model, please design/consider it carefully; what objects/ioctls are
> involved and how you change their relationships, where are the critical
> sections and how you protect them.
> Otherwise, I'm afraid we will just spend your time in transforming
> one bug to another. (and my time for reviewing and verifying problems :)

Noted.  I do appreciate your thorough reviews but will hopefully reduce
your burden by improving my awareness and code.

> >>> Also, your patch changes the queue configuration even when a table is
> >>> already active and used.  (e.g. Loading bio-based table to a mapped_device
> >>> which is already active/used as request-based sets q->requst_fn in NULL.)
> >>> That could cause some critical problems.
> >>
> >> Yes, that is possible and I can add additional checks to prevent this.
> >> But this speaks to a more general problem with the existing DM code.
> >>
> >> dm_swap_table() has the negative check to prevent such table loads, e.g.:
> >> /* cannot change the device type, once a table is bound */
> >>
> >> This check should come during table_load, as part of
> >> dm_table_set_type(), rather than during table resume.
> > 
> > I'll look to address this issue in v6 too.
> 
> It can race between table_load() and do_resume() as well;
>   table_load() for bio-based            do_resume() for rq-based
>   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>   dm_table_set_type(t) (<= bio-based)
>     live_table = dm_get_live_table(md)
>     (assume no live_table yet)
>                                         new_map = hc->new_map (<= rq-based)
>                                         dm_swap_table(md, new_map)
>                                         __bind(md, new_map)
>   dm_table_setup_md_queue(t)
>     dm_clear_request_based_queue(md)
>       md->queue->request_fn = NULL

Understood.

I've addressed the above races by:
1) properly protecting md->queue during do_resume().  Both do_resume()
   and table_load() first take md->queue_lock and then _hash_lock.
2) adding a negative check for an existing live table to
   dm_table_setup_md_queue().

I will mail out v7 after I've given it additional review.

FYI, I've revised and split out the conflicting table type checking
patch as that patch should not be controversial and is completely
independent of this DM queue initialization work.  I'll email it to
dm-devel soon.

Regards,
Mike


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]