All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] SCSI: Fix hard lockup in scsi_remove_target()
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 07:30:36 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1444833036.2220.38.camel@HansenPartnership.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1444829611.git.jthumshirn@suse.de>

On Wed, 2015-10-14 at 15:50 +0200, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> Removing a SCSI target via scsi_remove_target() suspected to be racy. When a
> sibling get's removed from the list it can occassionly happen that one CPU is
> stuck endlessly looping around this code block
> 
> list_for_each_entry(starget, &shost->__targets, siblings) {
>         if (starget->state == STARGET_DEL)
>                 continue;

How long is the __targets list?  It seems a bit unlikely that this is
the exact cause, because for a short list all in STARGET_DEL that loop
should exit very quickly.  Where in the code does scsi_remove_target
+0x68/0x240 actually point to?

Is it not a bit more likely that we're following a removed list element?
Since that points back to itself, the list_for_each_entry() would then
circulate forever.  If that's the case the simple fix would be to use
the safe version of the list traversal macro.

James


> Resulting in the following hard lockup.
> 
> Kernel panic - not syncing: Watchdog detected hard LOCKUP on cpu 0
> [...]
> Call Trace:
>  [<ffffffff8100471d>] dump_trace+0x7d/0x2d0
>  [<ffffffff81004a04>] show_stack_log_lvl+0x94/0x170
>  [<ffffffff81005cc1>] show_stack+0x21/0x50
>  [<ffffffff8151aa75>] dump_stack+0x41/0x51
>  [<ffffffff8151545a>] panic+0xc8/0x1d7
>  [<ffffffff810fbdda>] watchdog_overflow_callback+0xba/0xc0
>  [<ffffffff811336c8>] __perf_event_overflow+0x88/0x240
>  [<ffffffff8101e3aa>] intel_pmu_handle_irq+0x1fa/0x3e0
>  [<ffffffff81522836>] perf_event_nmi_handler+0x26/0x40
>  [<ffffffff81521fcd>] nmi_handle.isra.2+0x8d/0x180
>  [<ffffffff815221e6>] do_nmi+0x126/0x3c0
>  [<ffffffff8152159b>] end_repeat_nmi+0x1a/0x1e
>  [<ffffffffa00212e8>] scsi_remove_target+0x68/0x240 [scsi_mod]
>  [<ffffffff81072742>] process_one_work+0x172/0x420
>  [<ffffffff810733ba>] worker_thread+0x11a/0x3c0
>  [<ffffffff81079d34>] kthread+0xb4/0xc0
>  [<ffffffff81528cd8>] ret_from_fork+0x58/0x90
> 
> This series attacks the issue by 1) decoupling the __targets and __devices
> lists of struct Scsi_Host from the host_lock spinlock by introducing spinlocks
> for each list and 2) de-coupling the list traversals needed for detecting
> targets/devices to be removed from the actual removal by moving list entries to
> be deleted to a second list and perform the deletion there.
> 
> 
> The whole series survived a nearly 48h test loop of:
> while [ $not_done  ]; do
> 	umount $mountpoint;
> 	rmmod $module;
> 	modprobe $module;
> 	mount $mountpoint;
> done
> 
> This is a follow up of the patch proposed here:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-scsi&m=144377409311774&w=2
> incorporating Christoph's comment
> 
> Johannes Thumshirn (3):
>   SCSI: Introduce device_lock and target_lock in Scsi_Host
>   SCSI: Rework list handling in scsi_target_remove
>   SCSI: Rework list handling in __scsi_target_remove
> 
>  drivers/scsi/53c700.c     |  3 +++
>  drivers/scsi/hosts.c      |  2 ++
>  drivers/scsi/scsi.c       |  8 ++++----
>  drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c  | 10 +++++-----
>  drivers/scsi/scsi_sysfs.c | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>  include/scsi/scsi_host.h  |  2 ++
>  6 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> 




  parent reply	other threads:[~2015-10-14 14:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-14 13:50 [PATCH 0/3] SCSI: Fix hard lockup in scsi_remove_target() Johannes Thumshirn
2015-10-14 13:50 ` [PATCH 1/3] SCSI: Introduce device_lock and target_lock in Scsi_Host Johannes Thumshirn
2015-10-14 14:14   ` Hannes Reinecke
2015-10-14 14:17   ` Hannes Reinecke
2015-10-14 14:35   ` kbuild test robot
2015-10-14 14:35     ` kbuild test robot
2015-10-14 13:50 ` [PATCH 2/3] SCSI: Rework list handling in scsi_target_remove Johannes Thumshirn
2015-10-14 14:18   ` Hannes Reinecke
2015-10-14 13:50 ` [PATCH 3/3] SCSI: Rework list handling in __scsi_target_remove Johannes Thumshirn
2015-10-14 14:19   ` Hannes Reinecke
2015-10-14 14:30 ` James Bottomley [this message]
2015-10-14 14:39   ` [PATCH 0/3] SCSI: Fix hard lockup in scsi_remove_target() Johannes Thumshirn
2015-10-14 15:45     ` James Bottomley
2015-10-14 17:36       ` Johannes Thumshirn
2015-10-14 18:18       ` Christoph Hellwig
2015-10-16 11:24         ` Johannes Thumshirn
2015-10-14 16:12     ` Christoph Hellwig
2015-10-14 17:34       ` Johannes Thumshirn
2015-10-14 20:22   ` Ewan Milne
2015-10-15  7:07     ` Johannes Thumshirn

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=1444833036.2220.38.camel@HansenPartnership.com \
    --to=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
    --cc=hare@suse.de \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=jthumshirn@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.