Hi Tyler,
Thank you for the review comments. My replies are inlined below.
> > Scale it by introducing per-device lock: lo_mutex that proctests
> > field in struct loop_device. Keep loop_ctl_mutex to protect global
>
> s/proctests field/protects the fields/
OK
> > @@ -1890,22 +1890,23 @@ static int lo_open(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode)
> > return err;
> > lo = bdev->bd_disk->private_data;
> > if (!lo) {
> > - err = -ENXIO;
> > - goto out;
> > + mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
> > + return -ENXIO;
> > }
> > -
> > - atomic_inc(&lo->lo_refcnt);
> > -out:
> > + err = mutex_lock_killable(&lo->lo_mutex);
> > mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex);
>
> I don't see a possibility for deadlock but it bothers me a little that
> we're not unlocking in the reverse locking order here, as we do in
> loop_control_ioctl(). There should be no perf impact if we move the
> mutex_unlock(&loop_ctl_mutex) after mutex_unlock(&lo->lo_mutex).
The lo_open() was one of the top functions that showed up in
contention profiling, and the only shared data that it updates is
lo_recnt which can be protected by lo_mutex. We must have
loop_ctl_mutex in order to get a valid lo pointer, otherwise we could
race with loop_control_ioctl(LOOP_CTL_REMOVE). Unlocking in a
different order is not an issue, as long as we always preserve the
locking order.
> > @@ -2157,6 +2158,7 @@ static int loop_add(struct loop_device **l, int i)
> > disk->flags |= GENHD_FL_NO_PART_SCAN;
> > disk->flags |= GENHD_FL_EXT_DEVT;
> > atomic_set(&lo->lo_refcnt, 0);
> > + mutex_init(&lo->lo_mutex);
>
> We need a corresponding call to mutex_destroy() in loop_remove().
Yes, thank you for catching this.
> > +++ b/drivers/block/loop.h
> > @@ -62,6 +62,7 @@ struct loop_device {
> > struct request_queue *lo_queue;
> > struct blk_mq_tag_set tag_set;
> > struct gendisk *lo_disk;
>
> There's an instance, which is not in this patch's context, of accessing
> lo_disk that needs lo_mutex protection. In loop_probe(), we call
> get_disk_and_module(lo->lo_disk) and we need to lock and unlock lo_mutex
> around that call.
I will add it.
Thank you,
Pasha
