On 02/02/2016 04:43 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
On Tue, 2016-02-02 at 10:29 -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 02/02/2016 03:46 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c
index 4f18a85..00bc721 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c
@@ -1272,16 +1272,18 @@ static void __scsi_remove_target(struct
scsi_target *starget)
void scsi_remove_target(struct device *dev)
{
struct Scsi_Host *shost = dev_to_shost(dev->parent);
- struct scsi_target *starget;
+ struct scsi_target *starget, *last_target = NULL;
unsigned long flags;
restart:
spin_lock_irqsave(shost->host_lock, flags);
list_for_each_entry(starget, &shost->__targets, siblings) {
- if (starget->state == STARGET_DEL)
+ if (starget->state == STARGET_DEL ||
+ starget == last_target)
continue;
if (starget->dev.parent == dev || &starget->dev ==
dev) {
kref_get(&starget->reap_ref);
+ last_target = starget;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(shost->host_lock,
flags);
__scsi_remove_target(starget);
scsi_target_reap(starget);
Hello James,
Do you think it is a robust approach to store the pointer to the last
removed target in the last_target variable ?
Well, yes, I think it will work, if that's what you mean.
What if e.g. scsi_target_reap() frees the memory the last_target
pointer points at and another thread reallocates a scsi_target data
structure ? Can that last data structure have the same address as the
contents of the last_target variable ?
Yes, but it doesn't matter, does it? Add/Remove has always (and will
always) be racy. Under current conditions you can still add to the
target after the list_for_each terminates and have scsi_remove_target()
return with attached devices. The only way to close the race is
basically to forbid scanning as we shut down the host and wait for all
in-progress scans before starting the final removals.
Hello James,
Although the scenario I described is unlikely if it happens it might be
really hard to figure out what went wrong for someone who has not
followed this discussion. This makes me wonder whether the above patch
is really the best way to fix the reported soft lockup ...
Thanks,
Bart.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
