All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@wdc.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
	Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com>, Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	Linux SCSI List <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [blk-mq Bug] race on removing hctx->dispatch_wait from wait queue
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 19:15:24 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACVXFVPxnGhFQQEm7F_QNav9mr+ZDd4EsRSdSyKFAg06p5sEqQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180624101605.GA32610@ming.t460p>

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 6:16 PM, Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> Recently, I am figuring out solutions for removing synchronize_rcu() from
> blk_cleanup_queue() so that no long delay is caused during SCSI lun probe[1],
> especially from blk_mq_del_queue_tag_set(). This synchronize_rcu() is added
> by commit 705cda97ee3abb6ea(blk-mq: Make it safe to use RCU to iterate over
> blk_mq_tag_set.tag_list), and commit 6d8c6c0f97ad ("blk-mq: Restart a single
> queue if tag sets are shared"), and call this as 'TAG_SHARED in restart'.
>
> Basically speaking, the synchronize_rcu() can't be removed if we have
> to restart all tags-shared queues in current way('TAG_SHARED in restart')
> when one request is completed. Meantime blk-mq has used blk_mq_mark_tag_wait()
> to deal with cross-queue driver tag allocation, which means the two mechanism
> are  highly overlapped. Also SCSI has built-in RESTART, and not need
> 'TAG_SHARED in restart'.
>
> We tried to remove shared-tag restart in 358a3a6bccb7 (blk-mq: don't handle
> TAG_SHARED in restart) before, but it is reverted in commit 05b79413946d
> (Revert "blk-mq: don't handle TAG_SHARED in restart") because it causes
> regression in Bart's SRP test.
>
> Now I am revisiting 'TAG_SHARED in restart' again for the long delay issue
> of SCSI LUN probe. And found there is one bug in blk_mq_mark_tag_wait():
>
> - hctx->dispatch_wait is added to wait queue by holding hctx->lock and
> the wait queue's lock
>
> - no hctx->lock is held when removing hctx->dispatch_wait from wait
>   queue.
>
> - so the two actions(add, remove) may happen meantime since
>   hctx->dispatch_wait can be added to different wait queues.
>
> Turns out this issue can be observed easily by applying the patches[2],
> which is for removing 'TAG_SHARED in restart', then run simple shared-tag
> null_blk test[4].
>
> But if the hctx->lock is held in blk_mq_dispatch_wake(), as done in
> patch [3], there isn't such issue at all, so it shows this issue is
> related with hctx->lock, and adding/removing hctx->dispatch_wait to
> wait queue. But the way of holding hctx->lock in irq context may not
> be one accepted solution, since it has been avoided from the beginning
> of blk-mq.
>
> So does anyone have better ideas for this issue?
>
> So far, follows what I thought of:
>
> 1) fix the mechanism of blk_mq_mark_tag_wait(), and removing
> 'TAG_SHARED in restart', then we can fix the long delay issue of
> SCSI LUN probe, meantime performance can got improved, as I observed,
> this way may improve IOPS by 20~30% in multi-LUN scsi_debug test.
> But the issue is how to fix?
>
> 2) keep 'TAG_SHARED in restart' and let it cover the issue of
> blk_mq_mark_tag_wait() as now, then try to improve 'TAG_SHARED in restart'
> in another way, so that performance can be better, and synchronize_rcu()
> can be removed from blk_mq_del_queue_tag_set(), then SCSI LUN probe long
> delay can be fixed. I had wrote patches to do that last year. If anyone
> is interested, I may post it out.
>
> Or other ideas, any comments & ideas are welcome!

Looks introducing one new lock to protect hctx->dispatch_wait is fine.


Thanks,
Ming Lei

      parent reply	other threads:[~2018-06-25 11:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-06-24 10:16 [blk-mq Bug] race on removing hctx->dispatch_wait from wait queue Ming Lei
2018-06-24 16:33 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-06-25  7:24   ` Ming Lei
2018-06-26 20:19     ` Bart Van Assche
2018-06-27  0:49       ` Ming Lei
2018-06-27 20:00         ` Bart Van Assche
2018-06-27 23:24           ` Ming Lei
2018-06-25 11:15 ` Ming Lei [this message]

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=CACVXFVPxnGhFQQEm7F_QNav9mr+ZDd4EsRSdSyKFAg06p5sEqQ@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=tom.leiming@gmail.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=bart.vanassche@wdc.com \
    --cc=drjones@redhat.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=osandov@fb.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 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.