Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] block: block new I/O just after queue is set as dying
From: Bart Van Assche <hidden>
Date: 2017-03-27 15:49:40
On Mon, 2017-03-27 at 20:06 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Before commit 780db2071a(blk-mq: decouble blk-mq freezing from generic bypassing), the dying flag is checked before entering queue, and Tejun converts the checking into .mq_freeze_depth, and assumes the counter is increased just after dying flag is set. Unfortunately we doesn't do that in blk_set_queue_dying(). =20 This patch calls blk_freeze_queue_start() in blk_set_queue_dying(), so that we can block new I/O coming once the queue is set as dying. =20 Given blk_set_queue_dying() is always called in remove path of block device, and queue will be cleaned up later, we don't need to worry about undoing the counter. =20 Cc: Bart Van Assche <redacted> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com> --- block/blk-core.c | 13 ++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) =20diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c index 60f364e1d36b..e22c4ea002ec 100644 --- a/block/blk-core.c +++ b/block/blk-core.c@@ -500,6 +500,13 @@ void blk_set_queue_dying(struct request_queue *q) queue_flag_set(QUEUE_FLAG_DYING, q); spin_unlock_irq(q->queue_lock);=20 + /* + * When queue DYING flag is set, we need to block new req + * entering queue, so we call blk_freeze_queue_start() to + * prevent I/O from crossing blk_queue_enter(). + */ + blk_freeze_queue_start(q); if (q->mq_ops) blk_mq_wake_waiters(q); else {@@ -672,9 +679,9 @@ int blk_queue_enter(struct request_queue *q, bool now=
ait)
/* * read pair of barrier in blk_freeze_queue_start(), * we need to order reading __PERCPU_REF_DEAD flag of - * .q_usage_counter and reading .mq_freeze_depth, - * otherwise the following wait may never return if the - * two reads are reordered. + * .q_usage_counter and reading .mq_freeze_depth or + * queue dying flag, otherwise the following wait may + * never return if the two reads are reordered. */ smp_rmb(); =20
An explanation of why that crossing can happen is still missing above the blk_freeze_queue_start() call. Additionally, I'm still wondering whether or not we need "Cc: stable" tags for the patches in this series. But since the code looks fine: Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <redacted>
=