Message-ID: <20100521133456.GA14338@redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 21 May 2010 09:34:56 -0400
From:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
To:	Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@...jp.nec.com>
Cc:	Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
	Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	"Jun'ichi Nomura" <j-nomura@...jp.nec.com>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] dm: only initialize full request_queue for
 request-based device

On Fri, May 21 2010 at  4:32am -0400,
Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@...jp.nec.com> wrote:

> Hi Mike,
> 
> On 05/21/2010 02:07 AM +0900, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@...jp.nec.com> wrote:
> >> On 05/19/2010 11:39 PM +0900, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >>> Thanks again for pointing this out; I'll work to arrive at an
> >>> alternative locking scheme.  Likely introduce a lock local to the
> >>> multiple_device (effectively the 'queue_lock' I had before).  But
> >>> difference is I'd take that lock before taking _hash_lock.
> >>
> >> You have to see do_resume(), too.
> >> do_resume() gets hc->new_map with _hash_lock held but without your
> >> 'queue_lock' held.  This could cause inconsistent status;
> >>   table_load() for bio-based table    do_resume() for rq-based table
> >>   --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>   dm_lock_md_queue(md)
> >>   dm_table_setup_md_queue(t) (<= bio-based)
> >>     dm_clear_request_based_queue(md)
> >>       md->queue->request_fn = NULL
> >>                                        down_write(_hash_lock)
> >>                                        new_map = hc->new_map (<= rq-based)
> >>                                        up_write(_hash_lock)
> >>                                        dm_swap_table(md, new_map)
> >>                                        __bind(md, new_map) (<= rq-based)
> >>   down_write(_hash_lock)
> >>   hc->new_map = t
> >>   up_write(_hash_lock)
> >>   dm_unlock_md_queue(md)
> snip
> >>>>> Also, your patch changes the queue configuration even when a table is
> >>>>> already active and used.  (e.g. Loading bio-based table to a mapped_device
> >>>>> which is already active/used as request-based sets q->requst_fn in NULL.)
> >>>>> That could cause some critical problems.
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, that is possible and I can add additional checks to prevent this.
> >>>> But this speaks to a more general problem with the existing DM code.
> >>>>
> >>>> dm_swap_table() has the negative check to prevent such table loads, e.g.:
> >>>> /* cannot change the device type, once a table is bound */
> >>>>
> >>>> This check should come during table_load, as part of
> >>>> dm_table_set_type(), rather than during table resume.
> >>>
> >>> I'll look to address this issue in v6 too.
> >>
> >> It can race between table_load() and do_resume() as well;
> >>   table_load() for bio-based            do_resume() for rq-based
> >>   ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>   dm_table_set_type(t) (<= bio-based)
> >>     live_table = dm_get_live_table(md)
> >>     (assume no live_table yet)
> >>                                         new_map = hc->new_map (<= rq-based)
> >>                                         dm_swap_table(md, new_map)
> >>                                         __bind(md, new_map)
> >>   dm_table_setup_md_queue(t)
> >>     dm_clear_request_based_queue(md)
> >>       md->queue->request_fn = NULL
> > 
> > Understood.
> > 
> > I've addressed the above races by:
> > 1) properly protecting md->queue during do_resume().  Both do_resume()
> >    and table_load() first take md->queue_lock and then _hash_lock.
> > 2) adding a negative check for an existing live table to
> >    dm_table_setup_md_queue().
> > 
> > I will mail out v7 after I've given it additional review.
> 
> dm_table_setup_md_queue() may allocate memory with blocking mode
> inside md->queue_lock which is needed to resume the md.
> That could cause a deadlock which doesn't happen in the current model;
> e.g:
>   - Assume a bio-based table has been already loaded in hc->new_map
>     and no live table yet in a mapped_device.
>   - Load a request-based table and then no memory situation happens
>     in dm_table_setup_md_queue().
>   - Then, the mapped_device can't be resumed even in the case that
>     resuming the mapped_device with the preloaded bio-based table
>     can make some memory by writeback.
>   => deadlock

My patch introduces a new mutex that is local to the mapped_device being
loaded.  And that same mutex is taken during do_resume (just like you
implicitly said was needed to avoid races).

But I'm _very_ skeptical of the validity of this deadlock scenario.
You're leaving out some important context for why we might expect a DM
device to service (queue) IO during the table load _before_ the device
has _ever_ been resumed.  When I issue IO to a DM device that only has
an inactive table it returns immediately:

# dmsetup table --inactive
bio-based: 0 8388608 linear 254:16 384
# dd if=/dev/mapper/bio-based of=/dev/null bs=1024k count=10
0+0 records in
0+0 records out
0 bytes (0 B) copied, 0.00016418 s, 0.0 kB/s

As we discussed earlier in this thread, a table load can block
indefinitely (waiting for memory) as long as _hash_lock is not held (so
other DM ioctls are still possible).

It is a serious reach to suggest that your new deadlock scenario is a
legitimate concern.  This would mean that a user would:

1) mistakenly load a bio-based table when they meant rq-based
2) load rq-based -- but block waiting for elevator_alloc()
3) attempt to resume device with bio-based anyway -- to make forward
   progress with  writeback destined to the device being resumed for the
   first time? -- but again, why would dirty pages be destined for this
   inactive device already?
4) even if the user could resume they'd be left with a bio-based device;
   which isn't what they wanted..

Do you see the obscure nature of the scenario you've presented?

Please help me understand what I am missing?

Mike
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists