On 2017/2/16 下午3:04, NeilBrown wrote:
> 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.
conf->nr_queued[idx] is an integer and aligned to 4 bytes address, so
conf->nr_queued[idx]++ is same to atomic_inc(&conf->nr_queued[idx]),
it is atomic operation. And there is no ordering requirement, so I
don't need memory barrier here. This is why I remove spin lock, and
change it from atomic_t back to int.
IMHO, the problematic location is not here, but in freeze_array(). Now
the code assume array is froze when "get_unqueued_pending(conf) ==
extra" gets true. I think it is incorrect.
After conf->array_frozen is set to 1, raid1 code may still handle the
on flying requests, so conf->nr_pending[] and conf->nr_queued[] may
both decreasing. There is possibility that get_unqueued_pending()
returns 0 before everything is quiet at a very shot moment. If the
wait_event inside freeze_array() just catches this moment and gets a
true condition, continue to go and back to its caller, there will be
things unexpected happen.
I don't cover this issue in this patch set because I feel this is
another topic. Hmm, maybe I am a little off topic here.
Coly Li
--
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
