From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0210826090841579377=="
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Andrey Kuzmin <andrey.v.kuzmin at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [SPDK] spdk_bdev_close() threading
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 17:45:36 +0300
Message-ID: <CANvN+emhZk_mof466n_uvj2GPMKorhwmMg_Hyya5EPdwJeUdow@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 130299e01ddaee0d11a847cc4bf7d54997cd6dae.camel@intel.com
List-ID: <spdk@lists.01.org>
To: spdk@lists.01.org

--===============0210826090841579377==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Apr 5, 2019, 20:10 Walker, Benjamin <benjamin.walker(a)intel.com>
wrote:

> On Fri, 2019-04-05 at 08:13 +0000, Stojaczyk, Dariusz wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: SPDK [mailto:spdk-bounces(a)lists.01.org] On Behalf Of Harris,
> James R
> > > Sent: Friday, April 5, 2019 1:35 AM
> > > To: Storage Performance Development Kit <spdk(a)lists.01.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [SPDK] spdk_bdev_close() threading
> > >
> > > <SNIP>
> > >
> > >     I managed to push it into the bdev layer with barely 70 lines of
> code:
> > >     https://review.gerrithub.io/c/spdk/spdk/+/450112
> > >
> > > This doesn't handle the race I mentioned above.  Consider this case:
> > >
> > > Thread A opens a bdev.
> > > Thread B later decides it's going to close the bdev for some reason.
> Maybe
> > > the vhost session, nvmf subsystem, or iscsi target node is being
> deleted.
> > > There may be other reasons for user applications (outside of SPDK)
> using the
> > > bdev layer.  So thread B calls spdk_bdev_close().
> > > At the same time, that bdev is hot-removed.  Thread A will then
> callback to
> > > the user that the bdev was hot removed.  This thread calls
> > > spdk_bdev_close() to close the descriptor (which is a normal reaction
> to
> > > getting a hot remove notification).
> > >
> > > To prevent these two threads from racing to call spdk_bdev_close(), t=
he
> > > caller needs to add locking or some other kind of synchronization.
> This is
> > > on
> > > top of the extra locking added in this patch.
> > >
> > > I guess I don't understand why this can't be handled in vhost.  Have
> vhost
> > > send a message to the thread that constructed the SCSI device when it
> wants
> > > to destruct it (which closes the underlying bdevs).  Then that thread
> > > doesn't
> > > have to worry about any races - if the bdev was hotremoved by time the
> > > message arrived, it just doesn't call spdk_bdev_close().
> >
> > I find the vhost logic very complicated already and would like to push
> the
> > extra complexity somewhere else if possible. In that extra vhost message
> > we would have to:
> > * check if the desc wasn't closed before
> > * check if the entire vhost device is still there - it could have been
> removed
> > e.g. on user request
> > * make sure we close the proper descriptor. The one that this message
> > was originally scheduled for might have been removed and a new descript=
or
> > has been put in its place
> > * because of the above checks we need to lock anyway
> >
> > We don't have any mechanism in vhost to safely send a message to an
> > arbitrary thread. Most of the multi thread communication is done with
> > spdk_vhost_dev_foreach_session(), which can be called from any thread
> > and basically does:
> >  * execute a callback on each session's thread
> >  * lock the global mutex before each callback, so that it can safely
> access
> > the
> > global vhost device state (which is the usual case for foreach_session()
> - we
> > allow changing the device state from any thread locking the mutex, then
> > use foreach_session() to make each session retrieve the device changes).
> >  * keep the internal refcount of pending asynchronous vhost device
> > operations, so the vhost device can't be removed in the meantime
> >
> > It's not suitable for what you're asking.
>
> Note that the NVMe-oF target has a designated thread for each NVMe-oF
> subsystem,
> and all operations on that subsystem (including all bdev opens and closes)
> get
> funneled there. It then has additional infrastructure to send a message to
> every
> thread in the target to either update local data caches or to pause/resume
> I/O
> on those threads.
>
> NVMe-oF has some issues to work out with hotplug at the moment, but
> design-wise
> I think the threading model it uses is the right one and we need to move
> both
> vhost and iSCSI to a similar model. The way the NVMe-oF target works is
> also
> ideal for the upcoming lightweight threading changes.
>

It's rather surprising then that the above threading model hasn't been
applied to bdev layer where shared resources - such as bdev list - and
associated calls that modify it - such as register/unregister - are neither
protected, nor handled by the dedicated bdev manager thread. This gives me
a headache re how/if these resources will be managed safely in a
multithreaded environment.

Regards,
Andrey

>
> >
> > > I know there are some cases where we have to do locking in SPDK.  But
> I'd
> > > rather avoid adding it if possible.  This stuff is inherently
> difficult to
> > > really to
> > > test and ensure we get right.  This patch may only be about 120 lines
> of
> > > code,
> > > but we don't have any tests to make sure it's correct.
> >
> > I'm not sure if you saw them - this patch contains some unit tests for
> > spdk_bdev_close() called concurrently with spdk_bdev_unregister() on
> > a different thread. I stress-tested the real case scenario in vhost
> locally,
> > but
> > as for the CI, those unit tests are the best I can push right now.
> >
> > D.
> >
> > > -Jim
> > >
> > >
> > >     It doesn't affect any use cases which close the descriptor on the
> same
> > >     thread that opened it - it only lifts those single thread
> limitations.
> > >
> > >     D.
> > >
> > >     >
> > >     > -Jim
> > >     >
> > >     >
> > >     > _______________________________________________
> > >     > SPDK mailing list
> > >     > SPDK(a)lists.01.org
> > >     > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/spdk
> > >     _______________________________________________
> > >     SPDK mailing list
> > >     SPDK(a)lists.01.org
> > >     https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/spdk
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > SPDK mailing list
> > > SPDK(a)lists.01.org
> > > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/spdk
> > _______________________________________________
> > SPDK mailing list
> > SPDK(a)lists.01.org
> > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/spdk
>
> _______________________________________________
> SPDK mailing list
> SPDK(a)lists.01.org
> https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/spdk
>

--===============0210826090841579377==--