Vishal Verma wrote:
> Commit c05ae9d85b47 ("dax/bus.c: replace driver-core lock usage by a local rwsem")
> was a bit overzealous in eliminating device_lock() usage, and ended up
> removing a couple of lock acquisitions which were needed, and as a
> result, fix some of the conditional locking missteps that the above
> commit introduced in unregister_dax_dev() and unregister_dax_mapping().
I think it makes sense to tell the story a bit about why the
delete_store() conversion was problematic, because the
unregister_dev_dax() changes were just a knock-on effect to fixing the
delete_store() flow.
Something like:
---
commit c05ae9d85b47 ("dax/bus.c: replace driver-core lock usage by a local rwsem")
aimed to undo device_lock() abuses for protecting changes to dax-driver
internal data-structures like the dax_region resource tree to
device-dax-instance range structures. However, the device_lock() was legitamately
enforcing that devices to be deleted were not current actively attached
to any driver nor assigned any capacity from the region.
---
...you can fill in a couple notes about the knock-on fixups after that
was restored.
> Fixes: c05ae9d85b47 ("dax/bus.c: replace driver-core lock usage by a local rwsem")
> Reported-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/dax/bus.c | 44 ++++++++++----------------------------------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/dax/bus.c b/drivers/dax/bus.c
> index 7924dd542a13..4e04b228b080 100644
> --- a/drivers/dax/bus.c
> +++ b/drivers/dax/bus.c
> @@ -465,26 +465,17 @@ static void free_dev_dax_ranges(struct dev_dax *dev_dax)
> trim_dev_dax_range(dev_dax);
> }
>
> -static void __unregister_dev_dax(void *dev)
> +static void unregister_dev_dax(void *dev)
> {
> struct dev_dax *dev_dax = to_dev_dax(dev);
>
> dev_dbg(dev, "%s\n", __func__);
>
> + down_write(&dax_region_rwsem);
> kill_dev_dax(dev_dax);
> device_del(dev);
> free_dev_dax_ranges(dev_dax);
> put_device(dev);
> -}
> -
> -static void unregister_dev_dax(void *dev)
> -{
> - if (rwsem_is_locked(&dax_region_rwsem))
> - return __unregister_dev_dax(dev);
> -
> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(down_write_killable(&dax_region_rwsem) != 0))
> - return;
> - __unregister_dev_dax(dev);
> up_write(&dax_region_rwsem);
> }
>
> @@ -560,15 +551,12 @@ static ssize_t delete_store(struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr,
> if (!victim)
> return -ENXIO;
>
> - rc = down_write_killable(&dax_region_rwsem);
> - if (rc)
> - return rc;
> - rc = down_write_killable(&dax_dev_rwsem);
> - if (rc) {
> - up_write(&dax_region_rwsem);
> - return rc;
> - }
> + device_lock(dev);
> + device_lock(victim);
> dev_dax = to_dev_dax(victim);
> + rc = down_write_killable(&dax_dev_rwsem);
This begs the question, why down_write_killable(), but not
device_lock_interruptible()?
I do not expect any of this is long running so likely down_write() is
sufficient here, especially since the heaviest locks to acquire are
already held by the time rwsem is considered.
Other than that this looks good to me:
You can include my Reviewed-by on the next posting.
