linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2] blk-mq: insert rq with DONTPREP to hctx dispatch list when requeue

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]

Message-ID: <07260476-307a-efdc-63aa-95ea0a3e7489@oracle.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Feb 2019 10:34:39 +0800
From:   "jianchao.wang" <jianchao.w.wang@...cle.com>
To:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
Cc:     axboe@...nel.dk, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] blk-mq: insert rq with DONTPREP to hctx dispatch list
 when requeue

Hi Ming

Thanks for your kindly response.

On 2/15/19 10:00 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 09:56:25AM +0800, Jianchao Wang wrote:
>> When requeue, if RQF_DONTPREP, rq has contained some driver
>> specific data, so insert it to hctx dispatch list to avoid any
>> merge. Take scsi as example, here is the trace event log (no
>> io scheduler, because RQF_STARTED would prevent merging),
>>
>>    kworker/0:1H-339   [000] ...1  2037.209289: block_rq_insert: 8,0 R 4096 () 32768 + 8 [kworker/0:1H]
>> scsi_inert_test-1987  [000] ....  2037.220465: block_bio_queue: 8,0 R 32776 + 8 [scsi_inert_test]
>> scsi_inert_test-1987  [000] ...2  2037.220466: block_bio_backmerge: 8,0 R 32776 + 8 [scsi_inert_test]
>>    kworker/0:1H-339   [000] ....  2047.220913: block_rq_issue: 8,0 R 8192 () 32768 + 16 [kworker/0:1H]
>> scsi_inert_test-1996  [000] ..s1  2047.221007: block_rq_complete: 8,0 R () 32768 + 8 [0]
>> scsi_inert_test-1996  [000] .Ns1  2047.221045: block_rq_requeue: 8,0 R () 32776 + 8 [0]
>>    kworker/0:1H-339   [000] ...1  2047.221054: block_rq_insert: 8,0 R 4096 () 32776 + 8 [kworker/0:1H]
>>    kworker/0:1H-339   [000] ...1  2047.221056: block_rq_issue: 8,0 R 4096 () 32776 + 8 [kworker/0:1H]
>> scsi_inert_test-1986  [000] ..s1  2047.221119: block_rq_complete: 8,0 R () 32776 + 8 [0]
>>
>> (32768 + 8) was requeued by scsi_queue_insert and had RQF_DONTPREP.
> 
> scsi_mq_requeue_cmd() does uninit the request before requeuing, but
> __scsi_queue_insert doesn't do that.

Yes.
scsi layer use both of them.

> 
> 
>> Then it was merged with (32776 + 8) and issued. Due to RQF_DONTPREP,
>> the sdb only contained the part of (32768 + 8), then only that part
>> was completed. The lucky thing was that scsi_io_completion detected
>> it and requeued the remaining part. So we didn't get corrupted data.
>> However, the requeue of (32776 + 8) is not expected.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
>> Signed-off-by: Jianchao Wang <jianchao.w.wang@...cle.com>
>> ---
>> V2:
>>  - refactor the code based on Jens' suggestion
>>
>>  block/blk-mq.c | 12 ++++++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
>> index 8f5b533..9437a5e 100644
>> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
>> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
>> @@ -737,12 +737,20 @@ static void blk_mq_requeue_work(struct work_struct *work)
>>  	spin_unlock_irq(&q->requeue_lock);
>>  
>>  	list_for_each_entry_safe(rq, next, &rq_list, queuelist) {
>> -		if (!(rq->rq_flags & RQF_SOFTBARRIER))
>> +		if (!(rq->rq_flags & (RQF_SOFTBARRIER | RQF_DONTPREP)))
>>  			continue;
>>  
>>  		rq->rq_flags &= ~RQF_SOFTBARRIER;
>>  		list_del_init(&rq->queuelist);
>> -		blk_mq_sched_insert_request(rq, true, false, false);
>> +		/*
>> +		 * If RQF_DONTPREP, rq has contained some driver specific
>> +		 * data, so insert it to hctx dispatch list to avoid any
>> +		 * merge.
>> +		 */
>> +		if (rq->rq_flags & RQF_DONTPREP)
>> +			blk_mq_request_bypass_insert(rq, false);
>> +		else
>> +			blk_mq_sched_insert_request(rq, true, false, false);
>>  	}
> 
> Suppose it is one WRITE request to zone device, this way might break
> the order.

I'm not sure about this.
Since the request is dispatched, it should hold and zone write lock.
And also mq-deadline doesn't have a .requeue_request, zone write lock
wouldn't be released during requeue.

IMO, this requeue action is similar with what blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list does.
The latter one also issues the request to underlying driver and requeue rqs
on dispatch_list if get BLK_STS_SOURCE or BLK_STS_DEV_SOURCE.

And in addition, RQF_STARTED is set by io scheduler .dispatch_request and
it could be stop merging as RQF_NOMERGE_FLAGS contains it. 

Thanks
Jianchao