linux-kernel - Re: [RFC] block: fix blk_queue

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:	Thu, 7 Jul 2016 10:03:28 +0200
From:	Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@...bit.com>
To:	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
Cc:	linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
	Roland Kammerer <roland.kammerer@...bit.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.com>,
	Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
	Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, Alasdair Kergon <agk@...hat.com>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
	"open list:DEVICE-MAPPER (LVM)" <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
	Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@...il.com>,
	Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>,
	"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
	"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:BCACHE (BLOCK LAYER CACHE)" <linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:SOFTWARE RAID (Multiple Disks) SUPPORT" 
	<linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] block: fix blk_queue_split() resource exhaustion

On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 11:57:51PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > ==== my suggestion
> >
> > generic_make_request(bio_orig)
> >                 NULL                    in-flight=0
> > bio_orig        empty                   in-flight=0
> > qA->make_request_fn(bio_orig)
> >   blk_queue_split()
> >   result:
> >   bio_s, and bio_r stuffed away to head of remainder list.
> >                                         in-flight=1
> >   bio_c = bio_clone(bio_s)
> >   generic_make_request(bio_c to qB)
> >                 bio_c
> > <-return
> >                 bio_c
> >   bio_list_pop()
> >                 empty
> > qB->make_request_fn(bio_c)
> >   (Assume it does not clone, but only remap.
> >   But it may also be a striping layer,
> >   and queue more than one bio here.)
> >   generic_make_request(bio_c to qC)
> >                 bio_c
> > <-return
> >   bio_list_pop()
> >                 empty
> > qC->make_request_fn(bio_c)
> >   generic_make_request(bio_c to qD)
> >                 bio_c
> > <-return
> >   bio_list_pop()
> >                 empty
> > qD->make_request_fn(bio_c)
> >         dispatches to hardware
> > <-return
> >                 empty
> >    bio_list_pop()
> >    NULL, great, lets pop from remainder list
> > qA->make_request_fn(bio_r)              in-flight=?
> >
> >         May block, but only until completion of bio_c.
> >         Which may already have happened.
> >
> >         *makes progress*
> 
> I admit your solution is smart, but it isn't easy to prove it as correct
> in theory.  But if the traversal can be mapped into pre-order traversal
> of the above binary tree, it may be correct.

What are you talking about.
There is no tree.
There is a single fifo.
And I suggest to make that one fifo, and one lifo instead.

  |<------ original bio ----->|
  |piece|----remainder--------|
  
  |piece| is then processed, just as it was before,
  all recursive submissions turned into iterative processing,
  in the exact order they have been called recursively.
  Until all deeper level submissions have been fully processed.
  
  If deeper levels are again calling bio_queue_split, their
  respective remainder are queued in front of the "top level"
  remainder.
  
  And only then, the remainders are processed,
  just as if they did come in as "original bio", see above.

So if it did make progress before,
it will make progress now.

    Lars