On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 4:08 AM Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2022-03-21 at 19:34 -0500, Benjamin Marzinski wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2022 at 5:33 PM <mwilck@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > If multipathd needs to delay reconfigure() because it's waiting for
> > > a map
> > > creation uevent, it can happen that child() isn't woken up if the
> > > map
> > > being waited for is removed before the uevent arrives. Fix this by
> > > unblocking reconfigure() with the remove_map_callback() function.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Martin Wilck <mwilck@xxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > multipathd/main.c | 11 +++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/multipathd/main.c b/multipathd/main.c
> > > index f3b8eb4..4721cd8 100644
> > > --- a/multipathd/main.c
> > > +++ b/multipathd/main.c
> > > @@ -319,6 +319,17 @@ static bool unblock_reconfigure(void)
> > > return was_delayed;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +/*
> > > + * Make sure child() is woken up when a map is removed that
> > > multipathd
> > > + * is currently waiting for.
> > > + * Overrides libmultipath's weak symbol by the same name
> > > + */
> > > +void remove_map_callback(struct multipath *mpp)
> > > +{
> > > + if (mpp->wait_for_udev > 0)
> >
> > Is there a reason why you don't decrement wait_for_udev, and check
> > need_to_delay_reconfig() like in ev_add_map()? I realize that it
> > doesn't hurt anything to unblock the reconfigure even if there are
> > other devices that need a delay. The main thread will notice that it
> > still needs to delay. I'm just wondering why we do it differently
> > here?
>
> The main reason was to keep it simple. need_to_delay_reconfig() needs
> to be passed a "vecs" pointer, and requires the vecs lock to be
> held. remove_map() is deep down in the call stack and has lots of
> direct and indirect callers. It can be called with mpvec == NULL and
> (in theory) also with pathvec == NULL, in which case it simply frees
> the memory obtained by the map, without unlinking itself or its members
> from any vectors. In that case it *could* be called without the vecs
> lock held (AFAICS, that's not the case today, but the function could be
> used this way, e.g. in an error handling code path).
>
> I thought it was easier and safer not to have to assert that every
> current and future caller holds the vecs lock, in particular because
> this is called indirectly from libmultipath, the function that grabs
> the lock is usually high up in the call stack.
>
> I had indeed pondered whether I should remove the call to
> need_to_delay_reconfig() from the ev_add_map(), too. I decided against
> it, because I realized that waking up child() for nothing is not
> cheap,as child() needs to grab the vecs lock just for calling
> need_to_delay_reconfig(). We should avoid this for the common case of
> an uevent which we are waiting for.
> The remove_map() code path, OTOH, is a corner case (map being removed
> while in the process of being added). We need to cover it, but we know
> that this code path will be rarely executed in practice, and thus
> unlikely to cause vecs lock contention.
>
> I hope this makes sense.
Yeah. Whenever a map is getting removed from vecs->mpvec, the vecs
lock better be held. But since a map could be getting removed from
some other vector of maps, we can't use (mpvec != NULL) to be sure
that the vecs lock must be held.
Reviewed-by: Benjamin Marzinski <bmarzins@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Regards
> Martin
>
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
