Date:   Sat, 24 Feb 2018 20:05:13 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To:     Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
        'Paolo Valente' via bfq-iosched 
        <bfq-iosched@...glegroups.com>,
        Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
        Alban Browaeys <alban.browaeys@...il.com>,
        Ivan Kozik <ivan@...ios.org>,
        SERENA ZIVIANI <169364@...denti.unimore.it>,
        Holger Hoffstätte 
        <holger@...lied-asynchrony.com>, efault@....de,
        Serena Ziviani <ziviani.serena@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH BUGFIX V3] block, bfq: add requeue-request hook

On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 08:54:31AM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote:
> 
> 
> > Il giorno 23 feb 2018, alle ore 17:17, Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com> ha scritto:
> > 
> > Hi Paolo,
> > 
> > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 04:41:36PM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote:
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> Il giorno 23 feb 2018, alle ore 16:07, Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com> ha scritto:
> >>> 
> >>> Hi Paolo,
> >>> 
> >>> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 10:19:20PM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote:
> >>>> Commit 'a6a252e64914 ("blk-mq-sched: decide how to handle flush rq via
> >>>> RQF_FLUSH_SEQ")' makes all non-flush re-prepared requests for a device
> >>>> be re-inserted into the active I/O scheduler for that device. As a
> >>> 
> >>> No, this behaviour isn't related with commit a6a252e64914, and
> >>> it has been there since blk_mq_requeue_request() is introduced.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> Hi Ming,
> >> actually, we wrote the above statement after simply following the call
> >> chain that led to the failure.  In this respect, the change in commit
> >> a6a252e64914:
> >> 
> >> static bool blk_mq_sched_bypass_insert(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> >> +                                      bool has_sched,
> >>                                       struct request *rq)
> >> {
> >> -       if (rq->tag == -1) {
> >> +       /* dispatch flush rq directly */
> >> +       if (rq->rq_flags & RQF_FLUSH_SEQ) {
> >> +               spin_lock(&hctx->lock);
> >> +               list_add(&rq->queuelist, &hctx->dispatch);
> >> +               spin_unlock(&hctx->lock);
> >> +               return true;
> >> +       }
> >> +
> >> +       if (has_sched) {
> >>                rq->rq_flags |= RQF_SORTED;
> >> -               return false;
> >> +               WARN_ON(rq->tag != -1);
> >>        }
> >> 
> >> -       /*
> >> -        * If we already have a real request tag, send directly to
> >> -        * the dispatch list.
> >> -        */
> >> -       spin_lock(&hctx->lock);
> >> -       list_add(&rq->queuelist, &hctx->dispatch);
> >> -       spin_unlock(&hctx->lock);
> >> -       return true;
> >> +       return false;
> >> }
> >> 
> >> makes blk_mq_sched_bypass_insert return false for all non-flush
> >> requests.  From that, the anomaly described in our commit follows, for
> >> bfq any stateful scheduler that waits for the completion of requests
> >> that passed through it.  I'm elaborating again a little bit on this in
> >> my replies to your next points below.
> > 
> > Before a6a252e64914, follows blk_mq_sched_bypass_insert()
> > 
> >       if (rq->tag == -1) {
> >               rq->rq_flags |= RQF_SORTED;
> >               return false;
> > 	   }
> > 
> >       /*
> >        * If we already have a real request tag, send directly to
> >        * the dispatch list.
> >        */
> >       spin_lock(&hctx->lock);
> >       list_add(&rq->queuelist, &hctx->dispatch);
> >       spin_unlock(&hctx->lock);
> >       return true;
> > 
> > This function still returns false for all non-flush request, so nothing
> > changes wrt. this kind of handling.
> > 
> 
> Yep Ming.  I don't have the expertise to tell you why, but the failure
> in the USB case was caused by an rq that is not flush, but for which
> rq->tag != -1.  So, the previous version of blk_mq_sched_bypass_insert
> returned true, and there was not failure, while after commit
> a6a252e64914 the function returns true and the failure occurs if bfq
> does not exploit the requeue hook.
> 
> You have actually shown it yourself, several months ago, through the
> simple code instrumentation you made and used to show that bfq was
> stuck.  And I guess it can still be reproduced very easily, unless
> something else has changed in blk-mq.
> 
> BTW, if you can shed a light on this fact, that would be a great
> occasion to learn for me.

The difference should be made by commit 923218f6166a84 (blk-mq: don't
allocate driver tag upfront for flush rq), which releases driver tag
before requeuing the request, but that is definitely the correct thing
to do.

> 
> >> 
> >> I don't mean that this change is an error, it simply sends a stateful
> >> scheduler in an inconsistent state, unless the scheduler properly
> >> handles the requeue that precedes the re-insertion into the
> >> scheduler.
> >> 
> >> If this clarifies the situation, but there is still some misleading
> >> statement in the commit, just let me better understand, and I'll be
> >> glad to rectify it, if possible somehow.
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> And you can see blk_mq_requeue_request() is called by lots of drivers,
> >>> especially it is often used in error handler, see SCSI's example.
> >>> 
> >>>> consequence, I/O schedulers may get the same request inserted again,
> >>>> even several times, without a finish_request invoked on that request
> >>>> before each re-insertion.
> >>>> 
> >> 
> >> ...
> >> 
> >>>> @@ -5426,7 +5482,8 @@ static struct elevator_type iosched_bfq_mq = {
> >>>> 	.ops.mq = {
> >>>> 		.limit_depth		= bfq_limit_depth,
> >>>> 		.prepare_request	= bfq_prepare_request,
> >>>> -		.finish_request		= bfq_finish_request,
> >>>> +		.requeue_request        = bfq_finish_requeue_request,
> >>>> +		.finish_request		= bfq_finish_requeue_request,
> >>>> 		.exit_icq		= bfq_exit_icq,
> >>>> 		.insert_requests	= bfq_insert_requests,
> >>>> 		.dispatch_request	= bfq_dispatch_request,
> >>> 
> >>> This way may not be correct since blk_mq_sched_requeue_request() can be
> >>> called for one request which won't enter io scheduler.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> Exactly, there are two cases: requeues that lead to subsequent
> >> re-insertions, and requeues that don't.  The function
> >> bfq_finish_requeue_request handles both, and both need to be handled,
> >> to inform bfq that it has not to wait for the completion of rq any
> >> longer.
> >> 
> >> One special case is when bfq_finish_requeue_request gets invoked even
> >> if rq has nothing to do with any scheduler.  In that case,
> >> bfq_finish_requeue_request exists immediately.
> >> 
> >> 
> >>> __blk_mq_requeue_request() is called for two cases:
> >>> 
> >>> 	- one is that the requeued request is added to hctx->dispatch, such
> >>> 	as blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list()
> >> 
> >> yes
> >> 
> >>> 	- another case is that the request is requeued to io scheduler, such as
> >>> 	blk_mq_requeue_request().
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> yes
> >> 
> >>> For the 1st case, blk_mq_sched_requeue_request() shouldn't be called
> >>> since it is nothing to do with scheduler,
> >> 
> >> No, if that rq has been inserted and then extracted from the scheduler
> >> through a dispatch_request, then it has.  The scheduler is stateful,
> >> and keeps state for rq, because it must do so, until a completion or a
> >> requeue arrive.  In particular, bfq may decide that no other
> > 
> > This 'requeue' to hctx->dispatch is invisible to io scheduler, and from
> > io scheduler view, seems no difference between STS_OK and STS_RESOURCE,
> > since this request will be submitted to lld automatically by blk-mq
> > core.
> > 
> > Also in legacy path, no such notification to io scheduler too.
> 
> ok, still, for reasons that at this point I don't know, in the last
> 9-10 years it has never been reported a failure caused by a request
> that has been first dispatched by bfq and then re-inserted into bfq
> without being completed.  This new event is the problem.

This mechanism is invented by blk-mq, and I guess it is for avoiding to
disable irq when acquiring hctx->lock since blk-mq's completion handler
is done in irq context.

Legacy's requeue won't re-insert one request to scheduler queue.

> 
> 
> >> bfq_queues must be served before rq has been completed, because this
> >> is necessary to preserve its target service guarantees.  If bfq is not
> >> informed, either through its completion or its requeue hook, then it
> >> will wait forever.
> > 
> > The .finish_request will be called after this request is completed for this
> > case, either after this io is completed by device, or timeout.
> > 
> > Or .requeue_request will be called if the driver need to requeue it to
> > io scheduler via blk_mq_requeue_request() explicitly.
> > 
> > So io scheduler will be made sure to get notified.
> > 
> 
> So, you mean that the scheduler will get notified in a way or the
> other, if it has a requeue hook defined, right?  Or, simply, the
> request will be eventually completed, thus unblocking the scheduler?

Right, once .queue_rq() returns BLK_STS_RESOURCE, this rq is added to
hctx->dispatch list, and finally it will be completed via driver or
timeout handler, or it may be re-inserted to io scheduler queue via
blk_mq_requeue_request() by driver in driver's completion handler.

So io scheduler will get the notification finally.

> 
> 
> >> 
> >>> seems we only need to do that
> >>> for 2nd case.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >>> So looks we need the following patch:
> >>> 
> >>> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> >>> index 23de7fd8099a..a216f3c3c3ce 100644
> >>> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> >>> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> >>> @@ -712,7 +714,6 @@ static void __blk_mq_requeue_request(struct request *rq)
> >>> 
> >>> 	trace_block_rq_requeue(q, rq);
> >>> 	wbt_requeue(q->rq_wb, &rq->issue_stat);
> >>> -	blk_mq_sched_requeue_request(rq);
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> By doing so, if rq has 'passed' through bfq, then you block again bfq
> >> forever.
> > 
> > Could you explain it a bit why bfq is blocked by this way?
> 
> It's a theoretical problem (unfortunately not just a contingency you
> can work around).  If you want to guarantee that a process doing sync
> I/O, and with a higher weight than other processes, gets a share of
> the total throughput proportional to its weight, then you have to idle
> the device during the service slot of that process.  Otherwise, the
> pending requests of the other processes will simply slip through
> *every time* the high-weight process has no pending request because it
> is blocked by one of its sync request.  The final result will be loss
> of control on the percentage of requests of the high-weight process
> that get dispatched w.r.t. to the total number of requests
> dispatched.  So, failure to provide the process with its due share of
> the throughput.
> 
> I'm working on solutions to compensate for this nasty service
> constraint, and its effects on throughput, but this is another story.

As I explained, io scheduler will get notified via either
.finish_request or .requeue_request finally, so there shouldn't be
such block if this patch is in.

> 
> > 
> >> 
> >> Of course, I may be wrong, as I don't have a complete mental model of
> >> all what blk-mq does around bfq.  But I thin that you can quickly
> >> check whether a hang occurs again if you add this change.  In
> >> particular, it should happen in the USB former failure case.
> > 
> > USB/BFQ runs well on my parted test with this change, and this test can
> > trigger the IO hang issue easily on kyber or without your patch of 'block,
> > bfq: add requeue-request hook'.
> > 
> 
> Great!  According to the facts I reported at the beginning of
> this email, I guess your patch works because it avoids the
> nasty case for bfq, i.e., a request re-inserted into bfq without being
> completed first, right? 

BFQ still can get notified via .requeue_request when one request is re-inserted
to BFQ with this patch.

> And then, about the requeues without
> re-insertions, everything works because the latter type of requests
> eventually get a completion.  Is it correct?

Right.

> 
> Sorry for being pedantic, but because of our lack of expertise on
> these requeueing mechanism, we worked really a lot on this commit, and
> it would be frustrating if we bumped again into troubles, after
> removing it.  Apart from that, if this commit is useless, it is
> perfectly fine for me that it is reverted and replaced by a better
> solution.  In the end, less code in bfq means less room for bugs ;)

I agree. We should deal with this issue in a simple/clean way, just like
the patch of 'block: kyber: fix domain token leak during requeue'.

Now could you please let us know if you are fine with the patch of 'blk-mq:
don't call io sched's .requeue_request when requeueing rq to ->dispatch'?


Thanks,
Ming

Powered by blists - more mailing lists