On Thu, Feb 16 2017, colyli@xxxxxxx wrote:
> @@ -2393,6 +2455,11 @@ static void handle_write_finished(struct r1conf *conf, struct r1bio *r1_bio)
> idx = sector_to_idx(r1_bio->sector);
> conf->nr_queued[idx]++;
> spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> + /*
> + * In case freeze_array() is waiting for condition
> + * get_unqueued_pending() == extra to be true.
> + */
> + wake_up(&conf->wait_barrier);
> md_wakeup_thread(conf->mddev->thread);
> } else {
> if (test_bit(R1BIO_WriteError, &r1_bio->state))
> @@ -2529,9 +2596,7 @@ static void raid1d(struct md_thread *thread)
> retry_list);
> list_del(&r1_bio->retry_list);
> idx = sector_to_idx(r1_bio->sector);
> - spin_lock_irqsave(&conf->device_lock, flags);
> conf->nr_queued[idx]--;
> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&conf->device_lock, flags);
Why do you think it is safe to decrement nr_queued without holding the
lock?
Surely this could race with handle_write_finished, and an update could
be lost.
Otherwise, looks good.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
