On 9/27/18 11:48 PM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> Jens,
>
> On 2018/09/28 13:04, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> Jens,
>>
>> On 2018/09/28 12:53, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 9/26/18 8:16 PM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>>>> As check_swd() is useful for debugging, revert its removal done with
>>>> commit d60be7d51cbb ("zbd: Remove unused function and variable").
>>>
>>> The problem with dead code is that it's often forgotten when
>>> other changes are made, and then it doesn't even compile or
>>> work anymore.
>>>
>>> I'd be happier if this was dependent on some debug static
>>> bool instead, ala:
>>>
>>> static bool zbd_debug;
>>>
>>> And then have check_swd() do
>>>
>>> if (!zbd_debug)
>>> return;
>>>
>>> instead of hiding everything behind an #if 0.
>>
>> OK. No problem. I will update and send a v2.
>>
>> (and another patch to fix the incorrect comments signaled by Bart)
>>
>> Thanks !
>
> Not sending a fix after all: with check_swd() enabled, I am getting a deadlock
> between check_swd() and zbd_file_reset() on a zone mutex in test 29 when running
> against regular nullb.
>
> That needs to be investigated. But I do not have the time to do so right away.
>
> Bart,
>
> If you can, please also look at it ? I do not see anything obviously wrong. It
> may be a very subtle race.
+ for (z = zb; z < ze; z++) {
+ pthread_mutex_lock(&z->mutex);
+ swd += z->wp - z->start;
+ }
+ pthread_mutex_lock(&f->zbd_info->mutex);
Can 'z' ever end up being f->zbd_info? That would surely explain the
deadlock.
--
Jens Axboe
