Re: Strange block/scsi/workqueue issue

From: Jens Axboe
Date: Wed Apr 13 2011 - 16:12:43 EST


On 2011-04-13 19:01, James Bottomley wrote:
> While you still have the problematic system, can you try this patch? It
> avoids changing anything in block (other than to add a missing state
> guard for the elv_next_request). If it works, we can defer the sync vs
> async discussion and use it for a -stable fix.
>
> Thanks,
>
> James
>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/block/blk.h b/block/blk.h
> index c8db371..11d0d25 100644
> --- a/block/blk.h
> +++ b/block/blk.h
> @@ -62,7 +62,8 @@ static inline struct request *__elv_next_request(struct request_queue *q)
> return rq;
> }
>
> - if (!q->elevator->ops->elevator_dispatch_fn(q, 0))
> + if (test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_DEAD, &q->queue_flags) ||
> + !q->elevator->ops->elevator_dispatch_fn(q, 0))
> return NULL;
> }
> }
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c
> index e44ff64..5aa4246 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c
> @@ -322,14 +322,9 @@ static void scsi_device_dev_release_usercontext(struct work_struct *work)
> kfree(evt);
> }
>
> - if (sdev->request_queue) {
> - sdev->request_queue->queuedata = NULL;
> - /* user context needed to free queue */
> - scsi_free_queue(sdev->request_queue);
> - /* temporary expedient, try to catch use of queue lock
> - * after free of sdev */
> - sdev->request_queue = NULL;
> - }
> + /* temporary expedient, try to catch use of queue lock after
> + * free of sdev */
> + sdev->request_queue = NULL;
>
> scsi_target_reap(scsi_target(sdev));
>
> @@ -937,6 +932,11 @@ void __scsi_remove_device(struct scsi_device *sdev)
> if (sdev->host->hostt->slave_destroy)
> sdev->host->hostt->slave_destroy(sdev);
> transport_destroy_device(dev);
> + /* Setting this to NULL causes the request function to reject
> + * any I/O requests */
> + sdev->request_queue->queuedata = NULL;
> + /* Freeing the queue signals to block that we're done */
> + scsi_free_queue(sdev->request_queue);
> put_device(dev);
> }

This patch looks pretty clean. Shouldn't you serialize that ->queuedata
= NULL assignment with the queue lock, though?

--
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/