linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next v2 2/2] block, bfq: make bfq_has

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <75C5D422-A11F-4965-8785-781E13EC6C1B@unimore.it>
Date:   Wed, 18 May 2022 15:40:05 +0200
From:   Paolo VALENTE <paolo.valente@...more.it>
To:     "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yi.zhang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v2 2/2] block, bfq: make bfq_has_work() more
 accurate



> Il giorno 18 mag 2022, alle ore 03:17, yukuai (C) <yukuai3@...wei.com> ha scritto:
> 
> 在 2022/05/17 23:06, Paolo Valente 写道:
>>> Il giorno 17 mag 2022, alle ore 16:21, Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org> ha scritto:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Il giorno 16 mag 2022, alle ore 11:56, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> ha scritto:
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri 13-05-22 10:35:07, Yu Kuai wrote:
>>>>> bfq_has_work() is using busy_queues currently, which is not accurate
>>>>> because bfq_queue is busy doesn't represent that it has requests. Since
>>>>> bfqd aready has a counter 'queued' to record how many requests are in
>>>>> bfq, use it instead of busy_queues.
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> The number of requests queued is not equal to the number of busy
>>> queues (it is >=).
>> No, sorry. It is actually != in general.
> Hi, Paolo
> 
> I'm aware that number of requests queued is not equal to the number of
> busy queues, and that is the motivation of this patch.
> 
>> In particular, if queued == 0 but there are busy queues (although
>> still waiting for I/O to arrive), then responding that there is no
>> work caused blk-mq to stop asking, and hence an I/O freeze.  IOW I/O
>> eventually arrives for a busy queue, but blk-mq does not ask for a new
>> request any longer.  But maybe things have changed around bfq since
>> then.
> 
> The problem is that if queued == 0 while there are busy queues, is there
> any point to return true in bfq_has_work() ? IMO, it will only cause
> unecessary run queue. And if new request arrives,
> blk_mq_sched_insert_request() will trigger a run queue.

Great, if this is the scheme now, then the patch is correct and optimizing.

Thanks,
Paolo

> 
> Thanks,
> Kuai
>> Paolo
>>>  If this patch is based on this assumption then
>>> unfortunately it is wrong :(
>>> 
>>> Paolo
>>> 
>>>>> Noted that bfq_has_work() can be called with 'bfqd->lock' held, thus the
>>>>> lock can't be held in bfq_has_work() to protect 'bfqd->queued'.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>>>> 
>>>> Looks good. Feel free to add:
>>>> 
>>>> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
>>>> 
>>>> 								Honza
>>>> 
>>>>> ---
>>>>> block/bfq-iosched.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
>>>>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>>> 
>>>>> diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
>>>>> index 61750696e87f..740dd83853a6 100644
>>>>> --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
>>>>> +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
>>>>> @@ -2210,7 +2210,11 @@ static void bfq_add_request(struct request *rq)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	bfq_log_bfqq(bfqd, bfqq, "add_request %d", rq_is_sync(rq));
>>>>> 	bfqq->queued[rq_is_sync(rq)]++;
>>>>> -	bfqd->queued++;
>>>>> +	/*
>>>>> +	 * Updating of 'bfqd->queued' is protected by 'bfqd->lock', however, it
>>>>> +	 * may be read without holding the lock in bfq_has_work().
>>>>> +	 */
>>>>> +	WRITE_ONCE(bfqd->queued, bfqd->queued + 1);
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	if (RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&bfqq->sort_list) && bfq_bfqq_sync(bfqq)) {
>>>>> 		bfq_check_waker(bfqd, bfqq, now_ns);
>>>>> @@ -2402,7 +2406,11 @@ static void bfq_remove_request(struct request_queue *q,
>>>>> 	if (rq->queuelist.prev != &rq->queuelist)
>>>>> 		list_del_init(&rq->queuelist);
>>>>> 	bfqq->queued[sync]--;
>>>>> -	bfqd->queued--;
>>>>> +	/*
>>>>> +	 * Updating of 'bfqd->queued' is protected by 'bfqd->lock', however, it
>>>>> +	 * may be read without holding the lock in bfq_has_work().
>>>>> +	 */
>>>>> +	WRITE_ONCE(bfqd->queued, bfqd->queued - 1);
>>>>> 	elv_rb_del(&bfqq->sort_list, rq);
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	elv_rqhash_del(q, rq);
>>>>> @@ -5063,11 +5071,11 @@ static bool bfq_has_work(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
>>>>> 	struct bfq_data *bfqd = hctx->queue->elevator->elevator_data;
>>>>> 
>>>>> 	/*
>>>>> -	 * Avoiding lock: a race on bfqd->busy_queues should cause at
>>>>> +	 * Avoiding lock: a race on bfqd->queued should cause at
>>>>> 	 * most a call to dispatch for nothing
>>>>> 	 */
>>>>> 	return !list_empty_careful(&bfqd->dispatch) ||
>>>>> -		bfq_tot_busy_queues(bfqd) > 0;
>>>>> +		READ_ONCE(bfqd->queued);
>>>>> }
>>>>> 
>>>>> static struct request *__bfq_dispatch_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> 2.31.1
>>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
>>>> SUSE Labs, CR
>>> 
>> .