在 2021/12/03 18:27, Michal Koutný 写道:
On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 03:50:01PM +0800, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
blkg_destroy() is protected by the queue_lock，so I think queue_lock can
protect such concurrent scenario.
blkg_destroy() is not as destroying :-) as actual free, you should
synchronize against (the queue_lock ensures this for
pd_free_fn=throtl_pd_free but you may still trip on blkcg after
blkcg_css_free()).
Hi, Michal
I was thinking that if there are active blkgs, holding queue_lock will
ensure blkcg won't be freed. However, if there are no active blkgs in
the first place, it seems right rcu_read_lock() can prevent this
iteration concurrent with css_release->css_release_work_fn->
css_free_rwork_fn.
By the way, does spin_lock can guarantee this since it disables preempt
like what rcu_read_lock() does?
Thanks,
Kuai
[Actually, I think you should see a warning in your situation if you
enable CONFIG_PROVE_RCU.]
HTH,
Michal
