On 2/24/25 14:30, Nilay Shroff wrote:
The bdi->ra_pages could be updated under q->limits_lock because it's
usually calculated from the queue limits by queue_limits_commit_update.
So protect reading/writing the sysfs attribute read_ahead_kb using
q->limits_lock instead of q->sysfs_lock.
Signed-off-by: Nilay Shroff <nilay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
block/blk-sysfs.c | 16 ++++++++++------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-sysfs.c b/block/blk-sysfs.c
index 8f47d9f30fbf..228f81a9060f 100644
--- a/block/blk-sysfs.c
+++ b/block/blk-sysfs.c
@@ -93,9 +93,9 @@ static ssize_t queue_ra_show(struct gendisk *disk, char *page)
{
ssize_t ret;
- mutex_lock(&disk->queue->sysfs_lock);
+ mutex_lock(&disk->queue->limits_lock);
ret = queue_var_show(disk->bdi->ra_pages << (PAGE_SHIFT - 10), page);
- mutex_unlock(&disk->queue->sysfs_lock);
+ mutex_unlock(&disk->queue->limits_lock);
return ret;
}
@@ -111,12 +111,15 @@ queue_ra_store(struct gendisk *disk, const char *page, size_t count)
ret = queue_var_store(&ra_kb, page, count);
if (ret < 0)
return ret;
-
- mutex_lock(&q->sysfs_lock);
+ /*
+ * ->ra_pages is protected by ->limits_lock because it is usually
+ * calculated from the queue limits by queue_limits_commit_update.
+ */
+ mutex_lock(&q->limits_lock);
memflags = blk_mq_freeze_queue(q);
disk->bdi->ra_pages = ra_kb >> (PAGE_SHIFT - 10);
+ mutex_unlock(&q->limits_lock);
blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(q, memflags);
- mutex_unlock(&q->sysfs_lock);
Cf my comments to the previous patch: Ordering.
Here we take the lock _before_ 'freeze', with the previous patch we took
the lock _after_ 'freeze'.
Why?
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Frankenstr. 146, 90461 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), GF: I. Totev, A. McDonald, W. Knoblich
