Hello,
On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 11:30:48AM +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
> > + } else {
> > + srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(hctx->queue_rq_srcu);
> > + if (!blk_mark_rq_complete(rq))
> > + __blk_mq_complete_request(rq);
> > + srcu_read_unlock(hctx->queue_rq_srcu, srcu_idx);
>
> The __blk_mq_complete_request() could be executed in irq context. There should not be any
> sleeping operations in it. If just synchronize with the timeout path to ensure the aborted_gstate
> to be seen, only rcu is needed here ,as well as the blk_mq_timeout_work.
Sure, but it's just a lot cleaner to use the same to protect both
issue and completion; otherwise, whoever who wants to synchronize
against them have to do awkward double rcu locking.
Thanks.
--
tejun
