All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [for-4.14 RFC PATCH 1/2] dm rq: avoid deadlock if dm-mq is stacked on old .request_fn device(s)
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 10:19:29 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170714141929.GB18245@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170714072250.GC17046@lst.de>

On Fri, Jul 14 2017 at  3:22am -0400,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:

> The problem here is the following:
> 
> blk_finish_request must always be called with the queue lock held,
> it even has an assert.
> 
> Without blk-mq used by dm-rq, dm uses the block softirq to execute the
> completion, which means we always have a different execution context and
> can take the queue lock again without issuesi.
> 
> With blk-mq used by dm-rq, the the dm .complete handler that is the rough
> equivalent of the softirq handler is called either directly if were are
> on the same CPU, or using a IPI (hardirq) if not.  If this handler gets
> called from a legacy request function it will be called with the
> queue_lock held, but if it's called from a blk-mq driver or actually
> uses the IPI no lock will be held.

Yeap, very well explained!  I found exactly that yesterday when I
developed this patch.  I stopped short of getting into those details in
my header though, but as you know it comes down to dm_complete_request's
blk-mq-vs-not branching (blk_mq_complete_request vs blk_complete_request).

> When I did my blk-mq only for dm-mpath WIP patch my solution to that
> was that I removed the ->complete handler entirely and just ran the
> whole dm completion from the original hardirq context.  With that change
> I know that for blk-mq we'll never hold the queue_lock (and the blk-mq
> request free path doesn't care), and for legacy we always hold it,
> so __blk_put_request can always be used.

Do you see a benefit to extracting that portion of your WIP patch
(removing the ->complete handler entirely)?

Or leave well enough alone and just continue to disable dm-mq's ability
to stack on .request_fn paths?

Given SCSI's switch to scsi-mq by default I cannot see value in propping
up stacking on the old .request_fn devices.

But interested to get your thoughts, thanks.

  reply	other threads:[~2017-07-14 14:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-07-13 21:12 [for-4.14 RFC PATCH 0/2] dm rq: eliminate historic blk-mq and .request_fn queue stacking restrictions Mike Snitzer
2017-07-13 21:12 ` [for-4.14 RFC PATCH 1/2] dm rq: avoid deadlock if dm-mq is stacked on old .request_fn device(s) Mike Snitzer
2017-07-14  7:22   ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-07-14  7:22     ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-07-14 14:19     ` Mike Snitzer [this message]
2017-07-14 17:17       ` Ewan D. Milne
2017-07-14 21:15         ` Mike Snitzer
2017-07-13 21:12 ` [for-4.14 RFC PATCH 2/2] dm rq: eliminate historic blk-mq and .request_fn queue stacking restrictions Mike Snitzer
2017-07-14  7:12 ` [for-4.14 RFC PATCH 0/2] " Christoph Hellwig
2017-07-14 14:02   ` Mike Snitzer
2017-07-15  8:44     ` Christoph Hellwig

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=20170714141929.GB18245@redhat.com \
    --to=snitzer@redhat.com \
    --cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-block@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.