All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>
To: axboe@kernel.dk
Cc: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] bcache: avoid unnecessary soft lockup in kworker update_writeback_rate()
Date: Sat, 28 May 2022 20:45:50 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220528124550.32834-2-colyli@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220528124550.32834-1-colyli@suse.de>

The kworker routine update_writeback_rate() is schedued to update the
writeback rate in every 5 seconds by default. Before calling
__update_writeback_rate() to do real job, semaphore dc->writeback_lock
should be held by the kworker routine.

At the same time, bcache writeback thread routine bch_writeback_thread()
also needs to hold dc->writeback_lock before flushing dirty data back
into the backing device. If the dirty data set is large, it might be
very long time for bch_writeback_thread() to scan all dirty buckets and
releases dc->writeback_lock. In such case update_writeback_rate() can be
starved for long enough time so that kernel reports a soft lockup warn-
ing started like:
  watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#246 stuck for 23s! [kworker/246:31:179713]

Such soft lockup condition is unnecessary, because after the writeback
thread finishes its job and releases dc->writeback_lock, the kworker
update_writeback_rate() may continue to work and everything is fine
indeed.

This patch avoids the unnecessary soft lockup by the following method,
- Add new member to struct cached_dev
  - dc->rate_update_retry (0 by default)
- In update_writeback_rate() call down_read_trylock(&dc->writeback_lock)
  firstly, if it fails then lock contention happens.
- If dc->rate_update_retry <= BCH_WBRATE_UPDATE_MAX_SKIPS (15), doesn't
  acquire the lock and reschedules the kworker for next try.
- If dc->rate_update_retry > BCH_WBRATE_UPDATE_MAX_SKIPS, no retry
  anymore and call down_read(&dc->writeback_lock) to wait for the lock.

By the above method, at worst case update_writeback_rate() may retry for
1+ minutes before blocking on dc->writeback_lock by calling down_read().
For a 4TB cache device with 1TB dirty data, 90%+ of the unnecessary soft
lockup warning message can be avoided.

When retrying to acquire dc->writeback_lock in update_writeback_rate(),
of course the writeback rate cannot be updated. It is fair, because when
the kworker is blocked on the lock contention of dc->writeback_lock, the
writeback rate cannot be updated neither.

This change follows Jens Axboe's suggestion to a more clear and simple
version.

Signed-off-by: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>
---
 drivers/md/bcache/bcache.h    |  7 +++++++
 drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++----------
 2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/bcache.h b/drivers/md/bcache/bcache.h
index 9ed9c955add7..2acda9cea0f9 100644
--- a/drivers/md/bcache/bcache.h
+++ b/drivers/md/bcache/bcache.h
@@ -395,6 +395,13 @@ struct cached_dev {
 	atomic_t		io_errors;
 	unsigned int		error_limit;
 	unsigned int		offline_seconds;
+
+	/*
+	 * Retry to update writeback_rate if contention happens for
+	 * down_read(dc->writeback_lock) in update_writeback_rate()
+	 */
+#define BCH_WBRATE_UPDATE_MAX_SKIPS	15
+	unsigned int		rate_update_retry;
 };
 
 enum alloc_reserve {
diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c b/drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c
index d138a2d73240..3f0ff3aab6f2 100644
--- a/drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c
+++ b/drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c
@@ -235,19 +235,27 @@ static void update_writeback_rate(struct work_struct *work)
 		return;
 	}
 
-	if (atomic_read(&dc->has_dirty) && dc->writeback_percent) {
-		/*
-		 * If the whole cache set is idle, set_at_max_writeback_rate()
-		 * will set writeback rate to a max number. Then it is
-		 * unncessary to update writeback rate for an idle cache set
-		 * in maximum writeback rate number(s).
-		 */
-		if (!set_at_max_writeback_rate(c, dc)) {
-			down_read(&dc->writeback_lock);
+	/*
+	 * If the whole cache set is idle, set_at_max_writeback_rate()
+	 * will set writeback rate to a max number. Then it is
+	 * unncessary to update writeback rate for an idle cache set
+	 * in maximum writeback rate number(s).
+	 */
+	if (atomic_read(&dc->has_dirty) && dc->writeback_percent &&
+	    !set_at_max_writeback_rate(c, dc)) {
+		do {
+			if (!down_read_trylock((&dc->writeback_lock))) {
+				dc->rate_update_retry++;
+				if (dc->rate_update_retry <=
+				    BCH_WBRATE_UPDATE_MAX_SKIPS)
+					break;
+				down_read(&dc->writeback_lock);
+				dc->rate_update_retry = 0;
+			}
 			__update_writeback_rate(dc);
 			update_gc_after_writeback(c);
 			up_read(&dc->writeback_lock);
-		}
+		} while (0);
 	}
 
 
@@ -1006,6 +1014,9 @@ void bch_cached_dev_writeback_init(struct cached_dev *dc)
 	dc->writeback_rate_fp_term_high = 1000;
 	dc->writeback_rate_i_term_inverse = 10000;
 
+	/* For dc->writeback_lock contention in update_writeback_rate() */
+	dc->rate_update_retry = 0;
+
 	WARN_ON(test_and_clear_bit(BCACHE_DEV_WB_RUNNING, &dc->disk.flags));
 	INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&dc->writeback_rate_update, update_writeback_rate);
 }
-- 
2.35.3


  reply	other threads:[~2022-05-28 12:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-05-28 12:45 [PATCH v2 0/1] bcache fix for Linux v5.19 (3rd wave) Coly Li
2022-05-28 12:45 ` Coly Li [this message]
2022-05-28 12:48 ` Jens Axboe
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2022-05-28  6:19 [PATCH " Coly Li
2022-05-28  6:19 ` [PATCH 1/1] bcache: avoid unnecessary soft lockup in kworker update_writeback_rate() Coly Li
2022-05-28 12:20   ` Jens Axboe
2022-05-28 12:22     ` Coly Li
2022-05-28 12:23       ` 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=20220528124550.32834-2-colyli@suse.de \
    --to=colyli@suse.de \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-block@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.