On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 05:02:47PM +0300, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > Isn't the 4.1 fix just:
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> > index e5befa356dbe..6e4350a78257 100644
> > --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
> > +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> > @@ -3522,16 +3522,16 @@ returnbi:
> > * no updated data, so remove it from hash list and the stripe
> > * will be reinitialized
> > */
> > - spin_lock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> > unhash:
> > + spin_lock_irq(conf->hash_locks + sh->hash_lock_index);
> > remove_hash(sh);
> > + spin_unlock_irq(conf->hash_locks + sh->hash_lock_index);
> > if (head_sh->batch_head) {
> > sh = list_first_entry(&sh->batch_list,
> > struct stripe_head, batch_list);
> > if (sh != head_sh)
> > goto unhash;
> > }
> > - spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> > sh = head_sh;
> >
> > if (test_bit(STRIPE_SYNC_REQUESTED, &sh->state))
> >
> > ??
>
> In my opion, this patch looks correct, although it seems to me, that there is an another issue here.
>
> > if (head_sh->batch_head) {
> > sh = list_first_entry(&sh->batch_list,
> > struct stripe_head, batch_list);
> > if (sh != head_sh)
> > goto unhash;
> > }
>
> With a patch above this code will be executed without taking any locks. It it correct?
> In my opinion, we need to take at least sh->stripe_lock, which protects sh->batch_head.
> Or do I miss something?
>
> If you want, we can handle this issue separately.
The batch_list list doesn't need the protection. Only the remove_hash() need it.
Thanks,
Shaohua
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
