linux-block.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
	Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/5] blk-mq: improvement on handling IO during CPU hotplug
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 18:42:38 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191028104238.GA14008@ming.t460p> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f1ba3d36-fef4-25c5-720c-deb5c5bd7a86@huawei.com>

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 05:33:35PM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> > > There might be two reasons:
> > > 
> > > 1) You are still testing a multiple reply-queue device?
> > 
> > As before, I am testing by exposing mutliple queues to the SCSI
> > midlayer. I had to make this change locally, as on mainline we still
> > only expose a single queue and use the internal reply queue when
> > enabling managed interrupts.
> > 
> > As I
> > > mentioned last times, it is hard to map reply-queue into blk-mq
> > > hctx correctly.
> > 
> > Here's my branch, if you want to check:
> > 
> > https://github.com/hisilicon/kernel-dev/commits/private-topic-sas-5.4-mq-v4
> > 
> > It's a bit messy (sorry), but you can see that the reply-queue in the
> > LLDD is removed in commit 087b95af374.
> > 
> > I am now thinking of actually making this change to the LLDD in mainline
> > to avoid any doubt in future.
> > 
> > > 
> > > 2) concurrent dispatch to device, which can be observed by the
> > > following patch.
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> > > index 06081966549f..3590f6f947eb 100644
> > > --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> > > +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> > > @@ -679,6 +679,8 @@ void blk_mq_start_request(struct request *rq)
> > >  {
> > >         struct request_queue *q = rq->q;
> > > 
> > > +       WARN_ON_ONCE(test_bit(BLK_MQ_S_INTERNAL_STOPPED,
> > > &rq->mq_hctx->state));
> > > +
> > >         trace_block_rq_issue(q, rq);
> > > 
> > >         if (test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_STATS, &q->queue_flags)) {
> > > 
> > > However, I think it is hard to be 2#, since the current CPU is the last
> > > CPU in hctx->cpu_mask.
> > > 
> > 
> > I'll try it.
> > 
> 
> Hi Ming,
> 
> I am looking at this issue again.
> 
> I am using https://lore.kernel.org/linux-scsi/1571926881-75524-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com/T/#t
> with expose_mq_experimental set. I guess you're going to say that this
> series is wrong, but I think it's ok for this purpose.
> 
> Forgetting that for a moment, maybe I have found an issue.
> 
> For the SCSI commands which timeout, I notice that
> scsi_set_blocked(reason=SCSI_MLQUEUE_EH_RETRY) was called 30 seconds
> earlier.
> 
>  scsi_set_blocked+0x20/0xb8
>  __scsi_queue_insert+0x40/0x90
>  scsi_softirq_done+0x164/0x1c8
>  __blk_mq_complete_request_remote+0x18/0x20
>  flush_smp_call_function_queue+0xa8/0x150
>  generic_smp_call_function_single_interrupt+0x10/0x18
>  handle_IPI+0xec/0x1a8
>  arch_cpu_idle+0x10/0x18
>  do_idle+0x1d0/0x2b0
>  cpu_startup_entry+0x24/0x40
>  secondary_start_kernel+0x1b4/0x208

Could you investigate a bit the reason why timeout is triggered?

Especially we suppose to drain all in-flight requests before the
last CPU of this hctx becomes offline, and it shouldn't be caused by
the hctx becoming dead, so still need you to confirm that all
in-flight requests are really drained in your test. Or is it still
possible to dispatch to LDD after BLK_MQ_S_INTERNAL_STOPPED is set?

In theory, it shouldn't be possible, given we drain in-flight request
on the last CPU of this hctx.

Or blk_mq_hctx_next_cpu() may still run WORK_CPU_UNBOUND schedule after
all CPUs are offline, could you add debug message in that branch?

> 
> I also notice that the __scsi_queue_insert() call, above, seems to retry to
> requeue the request on a dead rq in calling
> __scsi_queue_insert()->blk_mq_requeue_requet()->__blk_mq_requeue_request(),
> ***:
> 
> [ 1185.235243] psci: CPU1 killed.
> [ 1185.238610] blk_mq_hctx_notify_dead cpu1 dead
> request_queue=0xffff0023ace24f60 (id=19)
> [ 1185.246530] blk_mq_hctx_notify_dead cpu1 dead
> request_queue=0xffff0023ace23f80 (id=17)
> [ 1185.254443] blk_mq_hctx_notify_dead cpu1 dead
> request_queue=0xffff0023ace22fa0 (id=15)
> [ 1185.262356] blk_mq_hctx_notify_dead cpu1 dead
> request_queue=0xffff0023ace21fc0 (id=13)***
> [ 1185.270271] blk_mq_hctx_notify_dead cpu1 dead
> request_queue=0xffff0023ace20fe0 (id=11)
> [ 1185.939451] scsi_softirq_done NEEDS_RETRY rq=0xffff0023b7416000
> [ 1185.945359] scsi_set_blocked reason=0x1057
> [ 1185.949444] __blk_mq_requeue_request request_queue=0xffff0023ace21fc0
> id=13 rq=0xffff0023b7416000***
> 
> [...]
> 
> [ 1214.903455] scsi_timeout req=0xffff0023add29000 reserved=0
> [ 1214.908946] scsi_timeout req=0xffff0023add29300 reserved=0
> [ 1214.914424] scsi_timeout req=0xffff0023add29600 reserved=0
> [ 1214.919909] scsi_timeout req=0xffff0023add29900 reserved=0
> 
> I guess that we're retrying as the SCSI failed in the LLDD for some reason.
> 
> So could this be the problem - we're attempting to requeue on a dead request
> queue?

If there are any in-flight requests originated from hctx which is going
to become dead, they should have been drained before CPU becomes offline.

Thanks, 
Ming


  reply	other threads:[~2019-10-28 10:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-14  1:50 Ming Lei
2019-10-14  1:50 ` [PATCH V4 1/5] blk-mq: add new state of BLK_MQ_S_INTERNAL_STOPPED Ming Lei
2019-10-14  1:50 ` [PATCH V4 2/5] blk-mq: prepare for draining IO when hctx's all CPUs are offline Ming Lei
2019-10-14  1:50 ` [PATCH V4 3/5] blk-mq: stop to handle IO and drain IO before hctx becomes dead Ming Lei
2019-11-28  9:29   ` John Garry
2019-10-14  1:50 ` [PATCH V4 4/5] blk-mq: re-submit IO in case that hctx is dead Ming Lei
2019-10-14  1:50 ` [PATCH V4 5/5] blk-mq: handle requests dispatched from IO scheduler " Ming Lei
2019-10-16  8:58 ` [PATCH V4 0/5] blk-mq: improvement on handling IO during CPU hotplug John Garry
2019-10-16 12:07   ` Ming Lei
2019-10-16 16:19     ` John Garry
     [not found]       ` <55a84ea3-647d-0a76-596c-c6c6b2fc1b75@huawei.com>
2019-10-20 10:14         ` Ming Lei
2019-10-21  9:19           ` John Garry
2019-10-21  9:34             ` Ming Lei
2019-10-21  9:47               ` John Garry
2019-10-21 10:24                 ` Ming Lei
2019-10-21 11:49                   ` John Garry
2019-10-21 12:53                     ` Ming Lei
2019-10-21 14:02                       ` John Garry
2019-10-22  0:16                         ` Ming Lei
2019-10-22 11:19                           ` John Garry
2019-10-22 13:45                             ` Ming Lei
2019-10-25 16:33             ` John Garry
2019-10-28 10:42               ` Ming Lei [this message]
2019-10-28 11:55                 ` John Garry
2019-10-29  1:50                   ` Ming Lei
2019-10-29  9:22                     ` John Garry
2019-10-29 10:05                       ` Ming Lei
2019-10-29 17:54                         ` John Garry
2019-10-31 16:28                         ` John Garry
2019-11-28  1:09 ` chenxiang (M)
2019-11-28  2:02   ` Ming Lei
2019-11-28 10:45     ` John Garry

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=20191028104238.GA14008@ming.t460p \
    --to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
    --cc=hare@suse.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
    --cc=keith.busch@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH V4 0/5] blk-mq: improvement on handling IO during CPU hotplug' \
    /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

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).