linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH IMPROVEMENT] block, bfq: limit sectors served with interactive weight raising

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:   Fri, 12 Jan 2018 11:20:44 +0100
From:   Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
To:     Holger Hoffstätte <holger@...lied-asynchrony.com>
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>,
        bfq-iosched@...glegroups.com, oleksandr@...alenko.name
Subject: Re: [PATCH IMPROVEMENT] block, bfq: limit sectors served with
 interactive weight raising



> Il giorno 12 gen 2018, alle ore 11:15, Holger Hoffstätte <holger@...lied-asynchrony.com> ha scritto:
> 
> On 01/12/18 06:58, Paolo Valente wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> Il giorno 28 dic 2017, alle ore 15:00, Holger Hoffstätte <holger@...lied-asynchrony.com> ha scritto:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12/28/17 12:19, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>> (snip half a tech report ;)
>>> 
>>> So either this or the previous patch ("limit tags for writes and async I/O"
>>> can lead to a hard, unrecoverable hang with heavy writes. Since I couldn't
>>> log into the affected system anymore I couldn't get any stack traces, blk-mq
>>> debug output etc. but there was nothing in dmesg/on the console, so it
>>> wasn't a BUG/OOPS.
>>> 
>>> -h
>> 
>> Hi Holger,
>> if, as I guess, this problem hasn't gone away for you, I have two
>> requests:
>> 1) could you share your exact test
>> 2) if nothing happens in my systems with your test, would you be
>> willing to retry with the dev version of bfq?  It should be able to
>> tell us what takes to your hang.  If you are willing to do this test,
>> I'll prepare a branch with everything already configured for you.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> thanks for following up but there's no need for any of that; it turned out
> to be something else since I got the same hang without those patches at
> least once (during a btrfs balance, even though it didn't look like btrfs'
> fault directly; more like block/mm/helpers.
> 
> So on January 7 I posted to linux-block et.al. where I said
> "So this turned out to be something else, sorry for the false alarm."
> but apparently that didn't make it through since it's not in the
> archives either. Sorry.
> 
> Long story short, the good news is that I've been running with both patches
> since then without any issue. :)
> 

Wow, what a relief! :)

So, Jens, being the only issue reported gone, can you please consider
queueing this patch and the other pending one [1]?  They are both
critical for bfq performance.

Thanks,
Paolo

[1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg2684463.html

> cheers
> Holger