linux-block.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.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: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 17:33:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <f1ba3d36-fef4-25c5-720c-deb5c5bd7a86@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <10aac76a-26bb-bcda-c6ea-b39ca66d6740@huawei.com>

>> 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

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?

Thanks,
John

> Thanks as always,
> John
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ming


  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-10-25 16:33 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 [this message]
2019-10-28 10:42               ` Ming Lei
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=f1ba3d36-fef4-25c5-720c-deb5c5bd7a86@huawei.com \
    --to=john.garry@huawei.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
    --cc=hare@suse.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=keith.busch@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --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).