On 5/30/23 11:17 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 11:09:09AM -0500, Mike Christie wrote:
>> On 5/30/23 11:00 AM, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
>>> I think it is partially related to commit 6e890c5d5021 ("vhost: use
>>> vhost_tasks for worker threads") and commit 1a5f8090c6de ("vhost: move
>>> worker thread fields to new struct"). Maybe that commits just
>>> highlighted the issue and it was already existing.
>>
>> See my mail about the crash. Agree with your analysis about worker->vtsk
>> not being set yet. It's a bug from my commit where I should have not set
>> it so early or I should be checking for
>>
>> if (dev->worker && worker->vtsk)
>>
>> instead of
>>
>> if (dev->worker)
>
> Yes, though, in my opinion the problem may persist depending on how the
> instructions are reordered.
Ah ok.
>
> Should we protect dev->worker() with an RCU to be safe?
For those multiple worker patchsets Jason had asked me about supporting
where we don't have a worker while we are swapping workers around. To do
that I had added rcu around the dev->worker. I removed it in later patchsets
because I didn't think anyone would use it.
rcu would work for your case and for what Jason had requested.
