linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: don't lose requests if a stopped queue restarts

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 4 May 2015 13:56:42 -0600
From:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
To:	Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
CC:	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: don't lose requests if a stopped queue restarts

On 05/04/2015 01:51 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 01:17:19PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 05/02/2015 06:31 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
>>> Normally if driver is busy to dispatch a request the logic is like below:
>>> block layer:					driver:
>>> 	__blk_mq_run_hw_queue
>>> a.						blk_mq_stop_hw_queue
>>> b.	rq add to ctx->dispatch
>>>
>>> later:
>>> 1.						blk_mq_start_hw_queue
>>> 2.	__blk_mq_run_hw_queue
>>>
>>> But it's possible step 1-2 runs between a and b. And since rq isn't in
>>> ctx->dispatch yet, step 2 will not run rq. The rq might get lost if
>>> there are no subsequent requests kick in.
>>
>> Good catch! But the patch introduces a potentially never ending loop
>> in __blk_mq_run_hw_queue(). Not sure how we can fully close it, but
>> it might be better to punt the re-run after adding the requests back
>> to the worker. That would turn a potential busy loop (until requests
>> complete) into something with nicer behavior, at least. Ala
>>
>> if (!test_bit(BLK_MQ_S_STOPPED, &hctx->state))
>>       kblockd_schedule_delayed_work_on(blk_mq_hctx_next_cpu(hctx),
>>                                          &hctx->run_work, 0);
>
> My first version of the patch is like this, but I changed my mind later.
> The assumption is driver will stop queue if it's busy to dispatch
> request.  If the driver is buggy, we will have the endless loop here.
> Should we assume drivers will not do the right thing?

There's really no contract that says the driver MUST stop the queue for 
busy. It could, legitimately, decide to just always run the queue when 
requests complete.

It might be better to simply force this behavior. If we get a BUSY, stop 
the queue from __blk_mq_run_hw_queue(). And if the bit isn't still set 
on re-add, then we know we need to re-run it. I think that would be a 
cleaner API, less fragile, and harder to get wrong. The down side is 
that now this stop happens implicitly by the core, and the driver must 
now have an asymmetric queue start when it frees the limited resource 
that caused the BUSY return. Either that, or we define a 2nd set of 
start/stop bits, one used exclusively by the driver and one used 
exclusively by blk-mq. Then blk-mq could restart the queue on completion 
of a request, since it would then know that blk-mq was the one that 
stopped it.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/