On Wed, Jul 24 2002, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
>
> >>>>2.5.27:drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c
> >>>>void blk_start_queue(request_queue_t *q)
> >>>>{
> >>>> if (test_and_clear_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_STOPPED, &q->queue_flags)) {
> >>>> unsigned long flags;
> >>>>
> >>>> spin_lock_irqsave(q->queue_lock, flags);
> >>>> if (!elv_queue_empty(q))
> >>>> q->request_fn(q);
> >>>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(q->queue_lock, flags);
> >>>> }
> >>>>}
>
> >There were buggy versions at one point, however they may not have made it
> >into a full release. In that case it was just bk version of 2.5.19-pre
> >effectively. I forget the details :-)
>
> Naj - it's far more trivial I just looked at wrong tree at hand...
> But anyway. What happens if somone does set QUEUE_FLAG_STOPPED
> between the test_and_claer_bit and taking the spin_lock? Setting
> the QUEUE_FLAG_STOPPED isn't maintaining the spin_lock protection!
It doesn't matter. If QUEUE_FLAG_STOPPED was set when entering
blk_start_queue(), it will call into the request_fn. If blk_stop_queue()
is called between clearing QUEUE_FLAG_STOPPED in blk_start_queue() and
grabbing the spin_lock, the worst that can happen is a spurios extra
request_fn call.
> My goal is to make sure that the QUEUE_FLAG_STOPPED has a valid value
> *inside* the q->request_fn call.
So you want the queue_lock to protect the flags as well... I don't
really see the point of this.
-- Jens Axboe- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 30 2002 - 14:00:15 EST