linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
	Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@canonical.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	dm-devel@redhat.com, Tyler Hicks <tyler.hicks@canonical.com>,
	Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] blk/core: Gracefully handle unset make_request_fn
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:52:26 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <81055166-37fb-ad65-6a53-11c22c626ab1@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200123172816.GA31063@redhat.com>

On 1/23/20 10:28 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23 2020 at  5:35am -0500,
> Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Jan 23 2020 at  4:17am -0500,
>> Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@canonical.com> wrote:
>>
>>> When device-mapper adapted for multi-queue functionality, they
>>> also re-organized the way the make-request function was set.
>>> Before, this happened when the device-mapper logical device was
>>> created. Now it is done once the mapping table gets loaded the
>>> first time (this also decides whether the block device is request
>>> or bio based).
>>>
>>> However in generic_make_request(), the request function gets used
>>> without further checks and this happens if one tries to mount such
>>> a partially set up device.
>>>
>>> This can easily be reproduced with the following steps:
>>>  - dmsetup create -n test
>>>  - mount /dev/dm-<#> /mnt
>>>
>>> This maybe is something which also should be fixed up in device-
>>> mapper.
>>
>> I'll look closer at other options.
>>
>>> But given there is already a check for an unset queue
>>> pointer and potentially there could be other drivers which do or
>>> might do the same, it sounds like a good move to add another check
>>> to generic_make_request_checks() and to bail out if the request
>>> function has not been set, yet.
>>>
>>> BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1860231
>>
>> >From that bug;
>> "The currently proposed fix introduces no chance of stability
>> regressions. There is a chance of a very small performance regression
>> since an additional pointer comparison is performed on each block layer
>> request but this is unlikely to be noticeable."
>>
>> This captures my immediate concern: slowing down everyone for this DM
>> edge-case isn't desirable.
> 
> SO I had a look and there isn't anything easier than adding the proposed
> NULL check in generic_make_request_checks().  Given the many
> conditionals in that  function.. what's one more? ;)
> 
> I looked at marking the queue frozen to prevent IO via
> blk_queue_enter()'s existing cheeck -- but that quickly felt like an
> abuse, especially in that there isn't a queue unfreeze for bio-based.
> 
> Jens, I'll defer to you to judge this patch further.  If you're OK with
> it: cool.  If not, I'm open to suggestions for how to proceed.  
> 

It does kinda suck... The generic_make_request_checks() is a mess, and
this doesn't make it any better. Any reason why we can't solve this
two step setup in a clean fashion instead of patching around it like
this? Feels like a pretty bad hack, tbh.

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2020-01-23 18:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-23  9:17 [PATCH 0/1] Handle NULL make_request_fn in generic_make_request() Stefan Bader
2020-01-23  9:17 ` [PATCH 1/1] blk/core: Gracefully handle unset make_request_fn Stefan Bader
2020-01-23 10:23   ` Tyler Hicks
2020-01-23 10:35   ` Mike Snitzer
2020-01-23 17:28     ` Mike Snitzer
2020-01-23 18:52       ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2020-01-24  6:04         ` Stefan Bader
2020-01-27 19:32         ` Mike Snitzer
2020-01-27 19:39           ` Jens Axboe
2020-01-28 14:32           ` Stefan Bader
2020-01-28 16:26             ` 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=81055166-37fb-ad65-6a53-11c22c626ab1@kernel.dk \
    --to=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=agk@redhat.com \
    --cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
    --cc=stefan.bader@canonical.com \
    --cc=tyler.hicks@canonical.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).