Hello, On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 09:36:25AM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote: > I'm not sure, of course this can fix the problem, but two spinlock > 'blkcg->lock' and 'q->queue_lock' are used to protect blkg_destroy() > currently, add a mutex（disk level?) requires a refactor, which seems > complex to me. The fact that the two paths can race each other already seems buggy. e.g. What prevents them from running pd_free on the same pd twice? So, it needs to be fixed anyway and the intention always has been that these callbacks are called in the correct traversal order. Thanks. -- tejun
