From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@huawei.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
paolo.valente@linaro.org, axboe@kernel.dk,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
yi.zhang@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 2/2] block, bfq: make bfq_has_work() more accurate
Date: Thu, 12 May 2022 19:10:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220512171025.blstxod6aphulctm@quack3.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <67425a7b-f9e1-d7a9-9ec8-158f9f8ce13e@huawei.com>
On Thu 12-05-22 09:30:16, yukuai (C) wrote:
> On 2022/05/11 22:08, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 10-05-22 21:16:29, Yu Kuai wrote:
> > > bfq_has_work() is using busy_queues currently, which is not accurate
> > > because bfq_queue is busy doesn't represent that it has requests. Since
> > > bfqd aready has a counter 'queued' to record how many requests are in
> > > bfq, use it instead of busy_queues.
> > >
> > > Noted that bfq_has_work() can be called with 'bfqd->lock' held, thus the
> > > lock can't be held in bfq_has_work() to protect 'bfqd->queued'.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
> >
> > So did you find this causing any real problem? Because bfq queue is
> > accounted among busy queues once bfq_add_bfqq_busy() is called. And that
> > happens once a new request is inserted into the queue so it should be very
> > similar to bfqd->queued.
> >
> > Honza
>
> Hi,
>
> The related problem is described here:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220510112302.1215092-1-yukuai3@huawei.com/
>
> The root cause of the panic is a linux-block problem, however, it can
> be bypassed if bfq_has_work() is accurate. On the other hand,
> unnecessary run_work will be triggered if bfqq stays busy:
>
> __blk_mq_run_hw_queue
> __blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests
> __blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched
> if (!bfq_has_work())
> break;
> blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queues -> run again after 3ms
Ah, I see. So it is the other way around than I thought. Due to idling
bfq_tot_busy_queues() can be greater than 0 even if there are no requests
to dispatch. Indeed. OK, the patch makes sense. But please use WRITE_ONCE
for the updates of bfqd->queued. Otherwise the READ_ONCE does not really
make sense (it can still result in some bogus value due to compiler
optimizations on the write side).
Honza
> > > ---
> > > block/bfq-iosched.c | 4 ++--
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
> > > index 61750696e87f..1d2f8110c26b 100644
> > > --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
> > > +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
> > > @@ -5063,11 +5063,11 @@ static bool bfq_has_work(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> > > struct bfq_data *bfqd = hctx->queue->elevator->elevator_data;
> > > /*
> > > - * Avoiding lock: a race on bfqd->busy_queues should cause at
> > > + * Avoiding lock: a race on bfqd->queued should cause at
> > > * most a call to dispatch for nothing
> > > */
> > > return !list_empty_careful(&bfqd->dispatch) ||
> > > - bfq_tot_busy_queues(bfqd) > 0;
> > > + READ_ONCE(bfqd->queued);
> > > }
> > > static struct request *__bfq_dispatch_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> > > --
> > > 2.31.1
> > >
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-12 17:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-10 13:16 [PATCH -next 0/2] block, bfq: make bfq_has_work() more accurate Yu Kuai
2022-05-10 13:16 ` [PATCH -next 1/2] block, bfq: protect 'bfqd->queued' by 'bfqd->lock' Yu Kuai
2022-05-11 13:52 ` Jan Kara
2022-05-10 13:16 ` [PATCH -next 2/2] block, bfq: make bfq_has_work() more accurate Yu Kuai
2022-05-11 14:08 ` Jan Kara
2022-05-12 1:30 ` yukuai (C)
2022-05-12 17:10 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2022-05-13 1:08 ` yukuai (C)
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=20220512171025.blstxod6aphulctm@quack3.lan \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paolo.valente@linaro.org \
--cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
--cc=yukuai3@huawei.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).