Re: [PATCH 001 of 9] md: Fix deadlock in md/raid1 and md/raid10 when handling a read error.

[Andre Noll]

On 17:08, Neil Brown wrote:
> > Do we really need to take the spin lock in the common case where
> > conf->pending_bio_list.head is NULL? If not, the above could be
> > optimized to the slightly faster and better readable
> > 
> > 	struct bio *bio;
> > 
> > 	if (!conf->pending_bio_list.head)
> > 		return 0;
> > 	spin_lock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> > 	bio = bio_list_get(&conf->pending_bio_list);
> > 	...
> > 	spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> > 	return 1;
> 
> Maybe... If I write a memory location inside a spinlock, then after
> the spinlock is dropped, I read that location on a different CPU,
> am I always guaranteed to see the new value? or do I need some sort of
> memory barrier?

Are you worried about another CPU setting conf->pending_bio_list.head
to != NULL after the if statement? If that's an issue I think also
the original patch is problematic because the same might happen after
the final spin_unlock_irq() but but before flush_pending_writes()
returns zero.

Andre
-- 
The only person who always got his work done by Friday was Robinson Crusoe

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature