qemu-block
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v7 01/18] job.c: make job_mutex and job_lock/unlock() public


From: Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 01/18] job.c: make job_mutex and job_lock/unlock() public
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2022 18:20:16 +0300
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.1

On 6/28/22 16:08, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:


Am 24/06/2022 um 20:22 schrieb Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy:
I've already acked this (honestly, because Stefan do), but still, want
to clarify:

On 6/16/22 16:18, Emanuele Giuseppe Esposito wrote:
job mutex will be used to protect the job struct elements and list,
replacing AioContext locks.

Right now use a shared lock for all jobs, in order to keep things
simple. Once the AioContext lock is gone, we can introduce per-job
locks.

To simplify the switch from aiocontext to job lock, introduce
*nop*  lock/unlock functions and macros.
We want to always call job_lock/unlock outside the AioContext locks,
and not vice-versa, otherwise we might get a deadlock.

Could you describe here, why we get a deadlock?

As I understand, we'll deadlock if two code paths exist simultaneously:

1. we take job mutex under aiocontext lock
2. we take aiocontex lock under job mutex

If these paths exists, it's possible that one thread goes through [1]
and another through [2]. If thread [1] holds job-mutex and want to take
aiocontext-lock, and in the same time thread [2] holds aiocontext-lock
and want to take job-mutext, that's a dead-lock.

If you say, that we must avoid [1], do you have in mind that we have [2]
somewhere? If so, this should be mentioned here

If not, could we just make a normal mutex, not a noop?

Of course we have [2] somewhere, otherwise I wouldn't even think about
creating a noop function. This idea came up in v1-v2.

Regarding the specific case, I don't remember. But there are tons of
functions that are acquiring the AioContext lock and then calling job_*
API, such as job_cancel_sync in blockdev.c.

I might use job_cancel_sync as example and write it in the commit
message though.


Yes, that's obvious that we have tons of [1]. That's why an example of [2] 
would be lot more valuable.


--
Best regards,
Vladimir



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]