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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:	Mon, 4 May 2015 13:20:12 -0700
From:	Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
To:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...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 Mon, May 04, 2015 at 01:56:42PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> 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.

Agree. I'll make the rerun async for now and leave above as a future
improvement.


>From 3e767da0e9f1044659c605120e09726ffd1aeab0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
Message-Id: <3e767da0e9f1044659c605120e09726ffd1aeab0.1430770649.git.shli@...com>
From: Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 16:39:39 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] blk-mq: don't lose requests if a stopped queue restarts

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.

Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
---
 block/blk-mq.c | 10 ++++++++++
 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)

diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
index ade8a2d..e1a5b9e 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq.c
@@ -855,6 +855,16 @@ static void __blk_mq_run_hw_queue(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
 		spin_lock(&hctx->lock);
 		list_splice(&rq_list, &hctx->dispatch);
 		spin_unlock(&hctx->lock);
+		/*
+		 * the queue is expected stopped with BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY, but
+		 * it's possible the queue is stopped and restarted again
+		 * before this. Queue restart will dispatch requests. And since
+		 * requests in rq_list aren't added into hctx->dispatch yet,
+		 * the requests in rq_list might get lost.
+		 *
+		 * blk_mq_run_hw_queue() already checks the STOPPED bit
+		 **/
+		blk_mq_run_hw_queue(hctx, true);
 	}
 }
 
-- 
1.8.1

--
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/