linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>,
	linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Kernel crash in icq_free_icq_rcu
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:05:03 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F1717DF.8060809@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120118163638.GD30204@redhat.com>

On 2012-01-18 17:36, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 05:31:06PM +0100, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 2012-01-18 17:24, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 2012-01-18 17:09, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 09:20:05AM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>>>>> Not allocating icq if request is never going to go to elevator as elevator
>>>>>> switch was happening makes sense to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tried this patch. It went little further and crashed at a different
>>>>>> place. I think this seems to be separate merging issue Tejun is trying
>>>>>> to track down.
>>>>>
>>>>> Applied Tejun's debug patch to return early and not call into elevator
>>>>> for checking whether merge is allowed or not. Things seems to be stable
>>>>> now for me.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, plug merge is calling into elevator code without any
>>>> synchronization, so it's bound to be broken.  Given plugging is
>>>> per-task, I don't think we really need to query elevator about merging
>>>> bio's.  The request is not on elevator and plugging is part of issuing
>>>> mechanism, not scheduling, after all.  Jens, what do you think?
>>>
>>> Hmmm. We can bypass asking the elevator, as long as we query the
>>> restrictions. Does the below, by itself, resolve the crash? If yes, let
>>> me cook up a patch splitting the elv and blk rq merging logic.
>>
>> Something like the below, completely untested.
>>
>> But thinking about this a bit while doing it, why is the IO scheduler
>> going away while we have plugged requests that are elvpriv?
> 
> Not calling ioscheduler during plug merge will allow merging of sync/async
> requests together. I guess we wouldn't want that. The only check we can
> skip in case of plug merge, is whether bio and rq beong to same task/cfqq
> or not.

It's not a huge concern. Since the IO is coming from the same task, it's
definitely related. And for the related cases, we pretty much always
want merging anyway.

> May be separate elevator functions for plug merge (without lock) and
> elevator merge (with lock) will do?

I don't think that's a good idea, just the restriction checking should
be enough.

-- 
Jens Axboe


  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-01-18 19:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-01-17 20:18 Kernel crash in icq_free_icq_rcu Vivek Goyal
2012-01-17 20:19 ` Jens Axboe
2012-01-17 20:40   ` Vivek Goyal
2012-01-17 20:42     ` Jens Axboe
2012-01-17 20:58       ` Vivek Goyal
2012-01-17 21:01         ` Vivek Goyal
2012-01-17 21:48 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-17 22:07   ` Vivek Goyal
2012-01-18  1:01     ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-18  1:03       ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-18  1:05         ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-18  1:11           ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-18  1:30             ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-18  2:26               ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-18  4:23                 ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-18  6:03               ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-18 13:51                 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-01-18 14:20                   ` Vivek Goyal
2012-01-18 16:09                     ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-18 16:24                       ` Jens Axboe
2012-01-18 16:31                         ` Jens Axboe
2012-01-18 16:36                           ` Vivek Goyal
2012-01-18 17:10                             ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-18 19:07                               ` Jens Axboe
2012-01-18 19:05                             ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2012-01-18 16:55                           ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-18 16:07                 ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-19  1:41                   ` [patch]block: fix NULL icq_cache reference Shaohua Li
2012-01-19  1:43                     ` Tejun Heo
2012-01-19  8:20                     ` Jens Axboe

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4F1717DF.8060809@kernel.dk \
    --to=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).