linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@linbit.com>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Cc: Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	Roland Kammerer <roland.kammerer@linbit.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>,
	Shaohua Li <shli@kernel.org>, Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>,
	"open list:DEVICE-MAPPER (LVM)" <dm-devel@redhat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
	Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@gmail.com>,
	Keith Busch <keith.busch@intel.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:BCACHE (BLOCK LAYER CACHE)"
	<linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:SOFTWARE RAID (Multiple Disks) SUPPORT" 
	<linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: block: fix blk_queue_split() resource exhaustion
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 10:24:49 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160628082448.GH3239@soda.linbit> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160624151547.GA13898@redhat.com>

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:15:47AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24 2016 at 10:27am -0400,
> Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@linbit.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 07:36:57PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is not a theoretical problem.
> > > > At least int DRBD, and an unfortunately high IO concurrency wrt. the
> > > > "max-buffers" setting, without this patch we have a reproducible deadlock.
> > > 
> > > Is there any log about the deadlock? And is there any lockdep warning
> > > if it is enabled?
> > 
> > In DRBD, to avoid potentially very long internal queues as we wait for
> > our replication peer device and local backend, we limit the number of
> > in-flight bios we accept, and block in our ->make_request_fn() if that
> > number exceeds a configured watermark ("max-buffers").
> > 
> > Works fine, as long as we could assume that once our make_request_fn()
> > returns, any bios we "recursively" submitted against the local backend
> > would be dispatched. Which used to be the case.
> 
> It'd be useful to know whether this patch fixes your issue:
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7398411/

I would assume so.
because if current is blocked for any reason,
it will dispatch all bios that are still on current->bio_list
to be processed from other contexts.

Which means we will not deadlock, but make progress,
if the unblock of current depends on processing of those bios.

Also see my other mail on the issue,
where I try to better explain the mechanics of "my" deadlock.

    Lars

  reply	other threads:[~2016-06-28  8:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-06-22  8:22 [RFC] block: fix blk_queue_split() resource exhaustion Lars Ellenberg
2016-06-24 11:36 ` Ming Lei
2016-06-24 14:27   ` Lars Ellenberg
2016-06-24 15:15     ` Mike Snitzer
2016-06-28  8:24       ` Lars Ellenberg [this message]
2016-06-25  9:30     ` [RFC] " Ming Lei
2016-06-28  8:45       ` Lars Ellenberg
2016-07-02 10:03         ` Ming Lei
2016-07-02 10:28 ` Ming Lei
2016-07-04  8:20   ` Lars Ellenberg
2016-07-04 10:47     ` Ming Lei
2016-07-06 12:38       ` Lars Ellenberg
2016-07-06 15:57         ` Ming Lei
2016-07-07  8:03           ` Lars Ellenberg
2016-07-07 13:14             ` Ming Lei
2016-07-07  5:35 ` [dm-devel] " NeilBrown
2016-07-07  8:16   ` Lars Ellenberg
2016-07-07 12:39     ` Lars Ellenberg
2016-07-07 12:47       ` Mike Snitzer
2016-07-07 22:07     ` [dm-devel] [RFC] " NeilBrown
2016-07-08  8:02       ` Lars Ellenberg
2016-07-08  9:39         ` NeilBrown
2016-07-08 13:00           ` Lars Ellenberg
2016-07-08 13:59             ` Lars Ellenberg
2016-07-08 11:08       ` Ming Lei
2016-07-08 12:52         ` Lars Ellenberg
2016-07-08 13:05           ` Mike Snitzer
2016-07-07 12:45   ` Mike Snitzer
2016-07-07 22:40     ` NeilBrown
2016-07-07 14:36 ` Mike Snitzer

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=20160628082448.GH3239@soda.linbit \
    --to=lars.ellenberg@linbit.com \
    --cc=agk@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=gnehzuil.liu@gmail.com \
    --cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
    --cc=keith.busch@intel.com \
    --cc=kent.overstreet@gmail.com \
    --cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=ming.lei@canonical.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=neilb@suse.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=roland.kammerer@linbit.com \
    --cc=shli@kernel.org \
    --cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
    --cc=tiwai@suse.de \
    /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).