| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <x497fm5dady.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 10:20:25 -0400
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Jason Luo <zhangqing.luo@...cle.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Guru Anbalagane <guru.anbalagane@...cle.com>,
Feng Jin <joe.jin@...cle.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] blk-mq: avoid excessive boot delays with large lun counts
Hi Ming,
Thanks for taking a look.
Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Zhangqing Luo reported long boot times on a system with thousands of
>> LUNs when scsi-mq was enabled. He narrowed the problem down to
>> blk_mq_add_queue_tag_set, where every queue is frozen in order to set
>> the BLK_MQ_F_TAG_SHARED flag. Each added device will freeze all queues
>> added before it in sequence, which involves waiting for an RCU grace
>> period for each one. We don't need to do this. After the second queue
>> is added, only new queues need to be initialized with the shared tag.
>> We can do that by percolating the flag up to the blk_mq_tag_set, since
>> new hctxs already inherit the tag_set's flags. That's what the below
>> patch does.
>
> Looks the idea is correct.
>
>>
>> The re-check in blk_mq_add_queue_tag_set is done because we could have
>> two queues racing to be the second queue added for the tag set. In such
>
> That isn't possible because of set->tag_list_lock.
Yes, it is possible. blk_mq_init_allocated_queue calls
blk_mq_init_hw_queues without the set->tag_list_lock. Consider a single
queue is present for the tag_set, and thus the BLK_MQ_F_TAG_SHARED flag
is not set. Then, two more async scan events are running on separate
CPUs. Each will go through this loop in blk_mq_init_hw_queues:
queue_for_each_hw_ctx(q, hctx, i) {
if (blk_mq_init_hctx(q, set, hctx, i))
break;
}
and blk_mq_init_hctx copies the flags:
hctx->flags = set->flags;
At this point, neither queue's hctxs have the shared flag set. Next,
both will race to get the tag_list_lock for the tag_set inside of
blk_mq_add_queue_tag_set. Only one will win and mark the initial
queue's hctx's as shared (as well as its own). Then, when the second
queue gets the lock, it will find that the shared tag is already set,
and assume that it doesn't have to do anything. But, because its
hctx->flags were copied before the BLK_MQ_F_TAG_SHARED flag was set, it
now will operate as if it's the only queue in the tag set.
So, yes, there is a race, and that extra check is necessary. Hopefully
I've explained it well enough. If not, let me know and I'll try again.
Cheers,
Jeff
>
>> a case, it's possible that not all of the hctxs within the loser will be
>> initialized. Because this initialization is done sequentially, we can
>> simply check for the BLK_MQ_F_TAG_SHARED flag in the first hctx.
>>
>> This problem was introduced by commit 0d2602ca30e41 (blk-mq: improve
>> support for shared tags maps).
>>
>> Reported-and-tested-by: Jason Luo <zhangqing.luo@...cle.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
>>
>> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
>> index 7785ae9..8b4c484 100644
>> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
>> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
>> @@ -1860,27 +1860,26 @@ static void blk_mq_map_swqueue(struct request_queue *q,
>> }
>> }
>>
>> -static void blk_mq_update_tag_set_depth(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set)
>> +static void queue_set_hctx_shared(struct request_queue *q, bool shared)
>> {
>> struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx;
>> - struct request_queue *q;
>> - bool shared;
>> int i;
>>
>> - if (set->tag_list.next == set->tag_list.prev)
>> - shared = false;
>> - else
>> - shared = true;
>> + queue_for_each_hw_ctx(q, hctx, i) {
>> + if (shared)
>> + hctx->flags |= BLK_MQ_F_TAG_SHARED;
>> + else
>> + hctx->flags &= ~BLK_MQ_F_TAG_SHARED;
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void blk_mq_update_tag_set_depth(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set, bool shared)
>> +{
>> + struct request_queue *q;
>>
>> list_for_each_entry(q, &set->tag_list, tag_set_list) {
>> blk_mq_freeze_queue(q);
>> -
>> - queue_for_each_hw_ctx(q, hctx, i) {
>> - if (shared)
>> - hctx->flags |= BLK_MQ_F_TAG_SHARED;
>> - else
>> - hctx->flags &= ~BLK_MQ_F_TAG_SHARED;
>> - }
>> + queue_set_hctx_shared(q, shared);
>> blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(q);
>> }
>> }
>> @@ -1891,7 +1890,13 @@ static void blk_mq_del_queue_tag_set(struct request_queue *q)
>>
>> mutex_lock(&set->tag_list_lock);
>> list_del_init(&q->tag_set_list);
>> - blk_mq_update_tag_set_depth(set);
>> +
>> + if (set->tag_list.next == set->tag_list.prev) {
>> + /* just transitioned to unshared */
>> + set->flags &= ~BLK_MQ_F_TAG_SHARED;
>> + /* update existing queue */
>> + blk_mq_update_tag_set_depth(set, false);
>> + }
>> mutex_unlock(&set->tag_list_lock);
>> }
>>
>> @@ -1902,7 +1907,24 @@ static void blk_mq_add_queue_tag_set(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set,
>>
>> mutex_lock(&set->tag_list_lock);
>> list_add_tail(&q->tag_set_list, &set->tag_list);
>> - blk_mq_update_tag_set_depth(set);
>> +
>> + if (set->tag_list.next != set->tag_list.prev) {
>> + /*
>> + * Only update the tag set state if the state has
>> + * actually changed.
>> + */
>> + if (!(set->flags & BLK_MQ_F_TAG_SHARED)) {
>> + /* just transitioned to shared tags */
>> + set->flags |= BLK_MQ_F_TAG_SHARED;
>> + blk_mq_update_tag_set_depth(set, true);
>> + } else {
>> + /* ensure we didn't race with another addition */
>> + struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx = queue_first_hw_ctx(q);
>> + if ((hctx->flags & BLK_MQ_F_TAG_SHARED) !=
>> + BLK_MQ_F_TAG_SHARED)
>> + queue_set_hctx_shared(q, true);
>
> The above check isn't necessary because the queue can't be up now, so
> it is OK to just call 'queue_set_hctx_shared(q, true)' directly.
>
>> + }
>> + }
>> mutex_unlock(&set->tag_list_lock);
>> }
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/blk-mq.h b/include/linux/blk-mq.h
>> index 5e7d43a..12ffc40 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/blk-mq.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/blk-mq.h
>> @@ -254,6 +254,9 @@ static inline void *blk_mq_rq_to_pdu(struct request *rq)
>> for ((i) = 0; (i) < (hctx)->nr_ctx && \
>> ({ ctx = (hctx)->ctxs[(i)]; 1; }); (i)++)
>>
>> +#define queue_first_hw_ctx(q) \
>> + (q)->queue_hw_ctx[0]
>> +
>> #define blk_ctx_sum(q, sum) \
>> ({ \
>> struct blk_mq_ctx *__x; \
--
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