From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, hare@suse.de, mkoutny@suse.com,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] bcache: ignore pending signals in bcache_device_init()
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 13:27:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200302122748.GH4380@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200302093450.48016-2-colyli@suse.de>
[Cc Oleg]
On Mon 02-03-20 17:34:49, Coly Li wrote:
> When cache device and cached device are registered simuteneously and
> register_cache() firstly acquires bch_register_lock. register_bdev()
> has to wait before register_cache() finished, it might be a very long
> time.
>
> If the registration is from udev rules in system boot up time, and
> registration is not completed before udev timeout (default 180s), the
> registration process will be killed by udevd. Then the following calls
> to kthread_run() or kthread_create() will fail due to the pending
> signal (they are implemented this way at this moment).
>
> For boot time, this is not good, because it means a cache device with
> huge cached data will always fail in boot time, just because it
> spends too much time to check its internal meta data (btree and dirty
> sectors).
>
> The failure for cache device registration is solved by previous
> patches, but failure due to timeout also exists in cached device
> registration. As the above text explains, cached device registration
> may also be timeout if it is blocked by a timeout cache device
> registration process. Then in the following code path,
> bioset_init() <= bcache_device_init() <= cached_dev_init() <=
> register_bdev() <= register_bcache()
> bioset_init() will fail because internally kthread_create() will fail
> for pending signal in the following code path,
> bioset_init() => alloc_workqueue() => init_rescuer() =>
> kthread_create()
>
> Maybe fix kthread_create() and kthread_run() is better method, but at
> this moment a fast workaroudn is to flush pending signals before
> calling bioset_init() in bcache_device_init().
I cannot really comment on the bcache part because I am not familiar
with the code. It is quite surprising to see an initialization taking
that long though.
Anyway
> This patch calls flush_signals() in bcache_device_init() if there is
> pending signal for current process. It avoids bcache registration
> failure in system boot up time due to bcache udev rule timeout.
this sounds like a wrong way to address the issue. Killing the udev
worker is a userspace policy and the kernel shouldn't simply ignore it.
Is there any problem to simply increase the timeout on the system which
uses a large bcache?
Btw. Oleg, I have noticed quite a lot of flush_signals usage in the
drivers land and I have really hard time to understand their purpose.
What is the actual valid usage of this function? Should we somehow
document it?
> Signed-off-by: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>
> ---
> drivers/md/bcache/super.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
> index 0c3c5419c52b..e8bbd4f171ca 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
> @@ -850,6 +850,18 @@ static int bcache_device_init(struct bcache_device *d, unsigned int block_size,
> if (idx < 0)
> return idx;
>
> + /*
> + * There is a timeout in udevd, if the bcache device is registering
> + * by udev rules, and not completed in time, the udevd may kill the
> + * registration process. In this condition, there will be pending
> + * signal here and cause bioset_init() failed for internally creating
> + * its kthread. Here the registration should ignore the timeout and
> + * continue, it is safe to ignore the pending signal and avoid to
> + * fail bcache registration in boot up time.
> + */
> + if (signal_pending(current))
> + flush_signals(current);
> +
> if (bioset_init(&d->bio_split, 4, offsetof(struct bbio, bio),
> BIOSET_NEED_BVECS|BIOSET_NEED_RESCUER))
> goto err;
> --
> 2.16.4
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-02 12:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-02 9:34 [PATCH 0/2] bcache patches for Linux v5.6-rc5 Coly Li
2020-03-02 9:34 ` [PATCH 1/2] bcache: ignore pending signals in bcache_device_init() Coly Li
2020-03-02 12:27 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2020-03-02 13:29 ` Coly Li
2020-03-02 13:40 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-02 17:06 ` Coly Li
2020-03-02 17:28 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-02 17:47 ` Coly Li
2020-03-03 1:22 ` Guoqing Jiang
2020-03-03 1:30 ` Coly Li
2020-03-02 13:49 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-03-02 17:16 ` Coly Li
2020-03-02 17:19 ` Jens Axboe
2020-03-02 17:32 ` Coly Li
2020-03-02 20:33 ` Jens Axboe
2020-03-03 1:08 ` Coly Li
2020-03-03 7:22 ` Hannes Reinecke
2020-03-03 8:05 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-03 12:19 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-03-03 16:03 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-04 11:36 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-03-04 11:53 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-03-04 18:42 ` Jens Axboe
2020-03-04 11:57 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-04 12:13 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-03-04 12:22 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-04 12:33 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-03-04 12:41 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-04 13:02 ` Oleg Nesterov
2020-03-04 13:21 ` Michal Hocko
2020-03-02 15:01 ` Jens Axboe
2020-03-02 9:34 ` [PATCH 2/2] bcache: fix code comments for ignore pending signals Coly Li
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=20200302122748.GH4380@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=colyli@suse.de \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=oleg@redhat.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 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).