On Mon, Aug 01, 2016 at 04:38:59PM +0800, Guoqing Jiang wrote: > Hi, > > On 07/31/2016 07:54 AM, shli@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >From: Shaohua Li <shli@xxxxxx> > > > >md-cluster receive thread calls .quiesce too, let it hold mddev lock. > > I'd suggest hold on for the patchset, I can find lock problem easily with > the patchset applied. Take a resyncing clusteed raid1 as example. > > md127_raid1 thread held reconfig_mutex then update sb, so it needs dlm > token lock. Meanwhile md127_resync thread got token lock and wants > EX on ack lock but recv_daemon can't release ack lock since recv_daemon > doesn't get reconfig_mutex. Thansk, I'll drop this one. Other two patches are still safe for md-cluster, right? I really hope to have consistent locking for .quiesce. For the process_recvd_msg, I'm wondering what's protecting the datas? for example, md-cluster uses md_find_rdev_nr_rcu, which access the disks list without locking. Is there a race? Does it work if we move the mddev lock to process_recvd_msg? 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
