Message-ID: <5656059B.9010102@suse.de>
Date:	Wed, 25 Nov 2015 20:01:47 +0100
From:	Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
To:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Cc:	emilne@...hat.com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
	"James E. J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@...n.com>,
	brking <brking@...ibm.com>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
	linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	Jun'ichi Nomura <j-nomura@...jp.nec.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c:1096!

On 11/25/2015 07:01 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25 2015 at  4:04am -0500,
> Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de> wrote:
>
>> On 11/20/2015 04:28 PM, Ewan Milne wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2015-11-20 at 15:55 +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
>>>> Can't we have a joint effort here?
>>>> I've been spending a _LOT_ of time trying to debug things here, but
>>>> none of the ideas I've come up with have been able to fix anything.
>>>
>>> Yes.  I'm not the one primarily looking at it, and we don't have a
>>> reproducer in-house.  We just have the one dump right now.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm almost tempted to increase the count from scsi_alloc_sgtable()
>>>> by one and be done with ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> That might not fix it if it is a problem with the merge code, though.
>>>
>> And indeed, it doesn't.
>
> How did you arrive at that?  Do you have a reproducer now?
>
Not a reproducer, but several dumps for analysis.

>> Seems I finally found the culprit.
>>
>> What happens is this:
>> We have two paths, with these seg_boundary_masks:
>>
>> path-1:    seg_boundary_mask = 65535,
>> path-2:    seg_boundary_mask = 4294967295,
>>
>> consequently the DM request queue has this:
>>
>> md-1:    seg_boundary_mask = 65535,
>>
>> What happens now is that a request is being formatted, and sent
>> to path 2. During submission req->nr_phys_segments is formatted
>> with the limits of path 2, arriving at a count of 3.
>> Now the request gets retried on path 1, but as the NOMERGE request
>> flag is set req->nr_phys_segments is never updated.
>> But blk_rq_map_sg() ignores all counters, and just uses the
>> bi_vec directly, resulting in a count of 4 -> boom.
>>
>> So the culprit here is the NOMERGE flag,
>
> NOMERGE is always set in __blk_rq_prep_clone() for cloned requests.
>
Yes.

>> which is evaluated via
>> ->dm_dispatch_request()
>>    ->blk_insert_cloned_request()
>>      ->blk_rq_check_limits()
>
> blk_insert_cloned_request() is the only caller of blk_rq_check_limits();
> anyway after reading your mail I'm still left wondering if your proposed
> patch is correct.
>
>> If the above assessment is correct, the following patch should
>> fix it:
>>
>> diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
>> index 801ced7..12cccd6 100644
>> --- a/block/blk-core.c
>> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
>> @@ -1928,7 +1928,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(submit_bio);
>>    */
>>   int blk_rq_check_limits(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq)
>>   {
>> -       if (!rq_mergeable(rq))
>> +       if (rq->cmd_type != REQ_TYPE_FS)
>>                  return 0;
>>
>>          if (blk_rq_sectors(rq) > blk_queue_get_max_sectors(q,
>> rq->cmd_flags)) {
>>
>>
>> Mike? Jens?
>> Can you comment on it?
>
> You're not explaining the actual change in the patch very well; I think
> you're correct but you're leaving the justification as an exercise to
> the reviewer:
>
> blk_rq_check_limits() will call blk_recalc_rq_segments() after the
> !rq_mergeable() check but you're saying for this case in question we
> never get there -- due to the cloned request having NOMERGE set.
>
> So in blk_rq_check_limits() you've unrolled rq_mergeable() and
> open-coded the lone remaining check (rq->cmd_type != REQ_TYPE_FS)
>
> I agree that the (rq->cmd_flags & REQ_NOMERGE_FLAGS) check in
> the blk_insert_cloned_request() call-chain (via rq_mergeable()) makes no
> sense for cloned requests that always have NOMERGE set.
>
> So you're saying that by having blk_rq_check_limits() go on to call
> blk_recalc_rq_segments() this bug will be fixed?
>
That is the idea.

I've already established that in all instances I have seen so far
req->nr_phys_segments is _less_ than req->bio->bi_phys_segments.

As it turns out, req->nr_phys_segemnts _would_ have been updated in
blk_rq_check_limits(), but isn't due to the NOMERGE flag being set
for the cloned request.
So each cloned request inherits the values from the original request,
despite the fact that req->nr_phys_segments _has_ to be evaluated in
the final request_queue context, as the queue limits _might_ be 
different from the original (merged) queue limits of the multipath
request queue.

> BTW, I think blk_rq_check_limits()'s export should be removed and the
> function made static and renamed to blk_clone_rq_check_limits(), again:
> blk_insert_cloned_request() is the only caller of blk_rq_check_limits()
>
Actually, seeing Jens' last comment the check for REQ_TYPE_FS is 
pointless, too, so we might as well remove the entire if-clause.

> Seems prudent to make that change now to be clear that this code is only
> used by cloned requests.
>
Yeah, that would make sense. I'll be preparing a patch.
With a more detailed description :-)

Cheers,

Hannes

-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		               zSeries & Storage
hare@...e.de			               +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)

--
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