Re: [PATCH 2/7] block: loop: don't hold lo_ctl_mutex in lo_open

[Jarod Wilson]

On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 09:40:34AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 08, 2015 at 02:50:59PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Hi Jarod,
> > 
> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Jarod Wilson <jarod@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > The lo_ctl_mutex is held for running all ioctl handlers, and
> > > in some ioctl handlers, ioctl_by_bdev(BLKRRPART) is called for
> > > rereading partitions, which requires bd_mutex.
> > >
> > > So it is easy to cause failure because trylock(bd_mutex) may
> > > fail inside blkdev_reread_part(), and follows the lock context:
> > >
> > > blkid or other application:
> > >         ->open()
> > >                 ->mutex_lock(bd_mutex)
> > >                 ->lo_open()
> > >                         ->mutex_lock(lo_ctl_mutex)
> > >
> > > losetup(set fd ioctl):
> > >         ->mutex_lock(lo_ctl_mutex)
> > >         ->ioctl_by_bdev(BLKRRPART)
> > >                 ->trylock(bd_mutex)
> > >
> > > This patch trys to eliminate the ABBA lock dependency by removing
> > > lo_ctl_mutext in lo_open() with the following approach:
> > >
> > > 1) introduce lo_open_mutex to protect lo_refcnt and avoid acquiring
> > > lo_ctl_mutex in lo_open():
> > 
> > It is a bit quick since I said the lo_open_mutex can be removed,
> > and Christoph agreed that too.
> > 
> > So looks we still need to post another version, :-)
> 
> Ah. I missed that bit. Just trying to keep up momentum.

Are you working on that atomic_t version then, or should I dive into it?

-- 
Jarod Wilson
jarod@xxxxxxxxxx

--
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/