From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>
Cc: 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 08:01:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <429df503-00b7-a433-5f6f-08b3f232a1bf@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200302122748.GH4380@dhcp22.suse.cz>
On 3/2/20 5:27 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [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?
On top of that, what if signals were sent for other reasons than just
terminate it? Flushing a fatal signal from "some task" seems bad enough
on its own, but we could be losing others as well.
Coly, this seems like a very bad idea. And the same goes for the
existing flush_signals() in bcache. It's just not the right way to deal
with it, and it could be causing other issues.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-02 15:02 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
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 [this message]
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=429df503-00b7-a433-5f6f-08b3f232a1bf@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=colyli@suse.de \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mhocko@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).