[PATCH BUGFIX 0/1] block, bfq: fix a bug causing a memory leak

[PATCH BUGFIX 0/1] block, bfq: fix a bug causing a memory leak

[Paolo Valente]

Hi Jens,
this patch fixes a bug that should not be super critical, in that it
should not cause any crash, but only occasional memory leaks.

Thanks,
Paolo

Paolo Valente (1):
  block, bfq: honor already-setup queue merges

 block/bfq-iosched.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--
2.20.1

[PATCH BUGFIX 1/1] block, bfq: honor already-setup queue merges

[Paolo Valente]

The function bfq_setup_merge prepares the merging between two
bfq_queues, say bfqq and new_bfqq. To this goal, it assigns
bfqq->new_bfqq = new_bfqq. Then, each time some I/O for bfqq arrives,
the process that generated that I/O is disassociated from bfqq and
associated with new_bfqq (merging is actually a redirection). In this
respect, bfq_setup_merge increases new_bfqq->ref in advance, adding
the number of processes that are expected to be associated with
new_bfqq.

Unfortunately, the stable-merging mechanism interferes with this
setup. After bfqq->new_bfqq has been set by bfq_setup_merge, and
before all the expected processes have been associated with
bfqq->new_bfqq, bfqq may happen to be stably merged with a different
queue than the current bfqq->new_bfqq. In this case, bfqq->new_bfqq
gets changed. So, some of the processes that have been already
accounted for in the ref counter of the previous new_bfqq will not be
associated with that queue.  This creates an unbalance, because those
references will never be decremented.

This commit fixes this issue by reestablishing the previous, natural
behaviour: once bfqq->new_bfqq has been set, it will not be changed
until all expected redirections have occurred.

Signed-off-by: Davide Zini <davidezini2@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
---
 block/bfq-iosched.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
index 727955918563..08d9122dd4c0 100644
--- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
+++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
@@ -2659,6 +2659,15 @@ bfq_setup_merge(struct bfq_queue *bfqq, struct bfq_queue *new_bfqq)
 	 * are likely to increase the throughput.
 	 */
 	bfqq->new_bfqq = new_bfqq;
+	/*
+	 * The above assignment schedules the following redirections:
+	 * each time some I/O for bfqq arrives, the process that
+	 * generated that I/O is disassociated from bfqq and
+	 * associated with new_bfqq. Here we increases new_bfqq->ref
+	 * in advance, adding the number of processes that are
+	 * expected to be associated with new_bfqq as they happen to
+	 * issue I/O.
+	 */
 	new_bfqq->ref += process_refs;
 	return new_bfqq;
 }
@@ -2721,6 +2730,10 @@ bfq_setup_cooperator(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq,
 {
 	struct bfq_queue *in_service_bfqq, *new_bfqq;
 
+	/* if a merge has already been setup, then proceed with that first */
+	if (bfqq->new_bfqq)
+		return bfqq->new_bfqq;
+
 	/*
 	 * Check delayed stable merge for rotational or non-queueing
 	 * devs. For this branch to be executed, bfqq must not be
@@ -2822,9 +2835,6 @@ bfq_setup_cooperator(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq,
 	if (bfq_too_late_for_merging(bfqq))
 		return NULL;
 
-	if (bfqq->new_bfqq)
-		return bfqq->new_bfqq;
-
 	if (!io_struct || unlikely(bfqq == &bfqd->oom_bfqq))
 		return NULL;
 
-- 
2.20.1

Re: [PATCH BUGFIX 1/1] block, bfq: honor already-setup queue merges

[Paolo Valente]

> Il giorno 2 ago 2021, alle ore 16:13, Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org> ha scritto:
> 
> The function bfq_setup_merge prepares the merging between two
> bfq_queues, say bfqq and new_bfqq. To this goal, it assigns
> bfqq->new_bfqq = new_bfqq. Then, each time some I/O for bfqq arrives,
> the process that generated that I/O is disassociated from bfqq and
> associated with new_bfqq (merging is actually a redirection). In this
> respect, bfq_setup_merge increases new_bfqq->ref in advance, adding
> the number of processes that are expected to be associated with
> new_bfqq.
> 
> Unfortunately, the stable-merging mechanism interferes with this
> setup. After bfqq->new_bfqq has been set by bfq_setup_merge, and
> before all the expected processes have been associated with
> bfqq->new_bfqq, bfqq may happen to be stably merged with a different
> queue than the current bfqq->new_bfqq. In this case, bfqq->new_bfqq
> gets changed. So, some of the processes that have been already
> accounted for in the ref counter of the previous new_bfqq will not be
> associated with that queue.  This creates an unbalance, because those
> references will never be decremented.
> 
> This commit fixes this issue by reestablishing the previous, natural
> behaviour: once bfqq->new_bfqq has been set, it will not be changed
> until all expected redirections have occurred.
> 

Hi Jens,
did you have time to look at this fix?

Thanks,
Paolo


> Signed-off-by: Davide Zini <davidezini2@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
> ---
> block/bfq-iosched.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
> index 727955918563..08d9122dd4c0 100644
> --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
> +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
> @@ -2659,6 +2659,15 @@ bfq_setup_merge(struct bfq_queue *bfqq, struct bfq_queue *new_bfqq)
> 	 * are likely to increase the throughput.
> 	 */
> 	bfqq->new_bfqq = new_bfqq;
> +	/*
> +	 * The above assignment schedules the following redirections:
> +	 * each time some I/O for bfqq arrives, the process that
> +	 * generated that I/O is disassociated from bfqq and
> +	 * associated with new_bfqq. Here we increases new_bfqq->ref
> +	 * in advance, adding the number of processes that are
> +	 * expected to be associated with new_bfqq as they happen to
> +	 * issue I/O.
> +	 */
> 	new_bfqq->ref += process_refs;
> 	return new_bfqq;
> }
> @@ -2721,6 +2730,10 @@ bfq_setup_cooperator(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq,
> {
> 	struct bfq_queue *in_service_bfqq, *new_bfqq;
> 
> +	/* if a merge has already been setup, then proceed with that first */
> +	if (bfqq->new_bfqq)
> +		return bfqq->new_bfqq;
> +
> 	/*
> 	 * Check delayed stable merge for rotational or non-queueing
> 	 * devs. For this branch to be executed, bfqq must not be
> @@ -2822,9 +2835,6 @@ bfq_setup_cooperator(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq,
> 	if (bfq_too_late_for_merging(bfqq))
> 		return NULL;
> 
> -	if (bfqq->new_bfqq)
> -		return bfqq->new_bfqq;
> -
> 	if (!io_struct || unlikely(bfqq == &bfqd->oom_bfqq))
> 		return NULL;
> 
> -- 
> 2.20.1
> 

Re: [PATCH BUGFIX 1/1] block, bfq: honor already-setup queue merges

[Paolo Valente]

> Il giorno 26 ago 2021, alle ore 11:16, Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org> ha scritto:
> 
> 
> 
>> Il giorno 2 ago 2021, alle ore 16:13, Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org> ha scritto:
>> 
>> The function bfq_setup_merge prepares the merging between two
>> bfq_queues, say bfqq and new_bfqq. To this goal, it assigns
>> bfqq->new_bfqq = new_bfqq. Then, each time some I/O for bfqq arrives,
>> the process that generated that I/O is disassociated from bfqq and
>> associated with new_bfqq (merging is actually a redirection). In this
>> respect, bfq_setup_merge increases new_bfqq->ref in advance, adding
>> the number of processes that are expected to be associated with
>> new_bfqq.
>> 
>> Unfortunately, the stable-merging mechanism interferes with this
>> setup. After bfqq->new_bfqq has been set by bfq_setup_merge, and
>> before all the expected processes have been associated with
>> bfqq->new_bfqq, bfqq may happen to be stably merged with a different
>> queue than the current bfqq->new_bfqq. In this case, bfqq->new_bfqq
>> gets changed. So, some of the processes that have been already
>> accounted for in the ref counter of the previous new_bfqq will not be
>> associated with that queue.  This creates an unbalance, because those
>> references will never be decremented.
>> 
>> This commit fixes this issue by reestablishing the previous, natural
>> behaviour: once bfqq->new_bfqq has been set, it will not be changed
>> until all expected redirections have occurred.
>> 
> 
> Hi Jens,
> did you have time to look at this fix?
> 

ping ...


> Thanks,
> Paolo
> 
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Davide Zini <davidezini2@gmail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> block/bfq-iosched.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
>> index 727955918563..08d9122dd4c0 100644
>> --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
>> +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
>> @@ -2659,6 +2659,15 @@ bfq_setup_merge(struct bfq_queue *bfqq, struct bfq_queue *new_bfqq)
>> 	 * are likely to increase the throughput.
>> 	 */
>> 	bfqq->new_bfqq = new_bfqq;
>> +	/*
>> +	 * The above assignment schedules the following redirections:
>> +	 * each time some I/O for bfqq arrives, the process that
>> +	 * generated that I/O is disassociated from bfqq and
>> +	 * associated with new_bfqq. Here we increases new_bfqq->ref
>> +	 * in advance, adding the number of processes that are
>> +	 * expected to be associated with new_bfqq as they happen to
>> +	 * issue I/O.
>> +	 */
>> 	new_bfqq->ref += process_refs;
>> 	return new_bfqq;
>> }
>> @@ -2721,6 +2730,10 @@ bfq_setup_cooperator(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq,
>> {
>> 	struct bfq_queue *in_service_bfqq, *new_bfqq;
>> 
>> +	/* if a merge has already been setup, then proceed with that first */
>> +	if (bfqq->new_bfqq)
>> +		return bfqq->new_bfqq;
>> +
>> 	/*
>> 	 * Check delayed stable merge for rotational or non-queueing
>> 	 * devs. For this branch to be executed, bfqq must not be
>> @@ -2822,9 +2835,6 @@ bfq_setup_cooperator(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq,
>> 	if (bfq_too_late_for_merging(bfqq))
>> 		return NULL;
>> 
>> -	if (bfqq->new_bfqq)
>> -		return bfqq->new_bfqq;
>> -
>> 	if (!io_struct || unlikely(bfqq == &bfqd->oom_bfqq))
>> 		return NULL;
>> 
>> -- 
>> 2.20.1

Re: [PATCH BUGFIX 1/1] block, bfq: honor already-setup queue merges

[Jens Axboe]

On 8/2/21 8:13 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
> The function bfq_setup_merge prepares the merging between two
> bfq_queues, say bfqq and new_bfqq. To this goal, it assigns
> bfqq->new_bfqq = new_bfqq. Then, each time some I/O for bfqq arrives,
> the process that generated that I/O is disassociated from bfqq and
> associated with new_bfqq (merging is actually a redirection). In this
> respect, bfq_setup_merge increases new_bfqq->ref in advance, adding
> the number of processes that are expected to be associated with
> new_bfqq.
> 
> Unfortunately, the stable-merging mechanism interferes with this
> setup. After bfqq->new_bfqq has been set by bfq_setup_merge, and
> before all the expected processes have been associated with
> bfqq->new_bfqq, bfqq may happen to be stably merged with a different
> queue than the current bfqq->new_bfqq. In this case, bfqq->new_bfqq
> gets changed. So, some of the processes that have been already
> accounted for in the ref counter of the previous new_bfqq will not be
> associated with that queue.  This creates an unbalance, because those
> references will never be decremented.
> 
> This commit fixes this issue by reestablishing the previous, natural
> behaviour: once bfqq->new_bfqq has been set, it will not be changed
> until all expected redirections have occurred.

Applied, thanks.

-- 
Jens Axboe