linux-kernel - Re: stalling IO regression since linux 5.12, through 5.18

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: <2b8a38fa-f15f-45e8-8caa-61c5f8cd52de@www.fastmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 16 Aug 2022 11:34:00 -0400
From:   "Chris Murphy" <lists@...orremedies.com>
To:     "Nikolay Borisov" <nborisov@...e.com>,
        "Jens Axboe" <axboe@...nel.dk>, "Jan Kara" <jack@...e.cz>,
        "Paolo Valente" <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
Cc:     "Btrfs BTRFS" <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-RAID <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Josef Bacik" <josef@...icpanda.com>
Subject: Re: stalling IO regression since linux 5.12, through 5.18



On Tue, Aug 16, 2022, at 11:25 AM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> On 16.08.22 г. 17:22 ч., Chris Murphy wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2022, at 4:28 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, at 2:02 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> Might be worth trying to revert those from 5.12 to see if they are
>>>> causing the issue? Jan, Paolo - does this ring any bells?
>>>
>>> git log --oneline --no-merges v5.11..c03c21ba6f4e > bisect.txt
>>>
>>> I tried checking out a33df75c6328, which is right before the first bfq
>>> commit, but that kernel won't boot the hardware.
>>>
>>> Next I checked out v5.12, then reverted these commits in order (that
>>> they were found in the bisect.txt file):
>>>
>>> 7684fbde4516 bfq: Use only idle IO periods for think time calculations
>>> 28c6def00919 bfq: Use 'ttime' local variable
>>> 41e76c85660c bfq: Avoid false bfq queue merging
>>>>>> a5bf0a92e1b8 bfq: bfq_check_waker() should be static
>>> 71217df39dc6 block, bfq: make waker-queue detection more robust
>>> 5a5436b98d5c block, bfq: save also injection state on queue merging
>>> e673914d52f9 block, bfq: save also weight-raised service on queue merging
>>> d1f600fa4732 block, bfq: fix switch back from soft-rt weitgh-raising
>>> 7f1995c27b19 block, bfq: re-evaluate convenience of I/O plugging on rq arrivals
>>> eb2fd80f9d2c block, bfq: replace mechanism for evaluating I/O intensity
>>>>>> 1a23e06cdab2 bfq: don't duplicate code for different paths
>>> 2391d13ed484 block, bfq: do not expire a queue when it is the only busy
>>> one
>>> 3c337690d2eb block, bfq: avoid spurious switches to soft_rt of
>>> interactive queues
>>> 91b896f65d32 block, bfq: do not raise non-default weights
>>> ab1fb47e33dc block, bfq: increase time window for waker detection
>>> d4fc3640ff36 block, bfq: set next_rq to waker_bfqq->next_rq in waker
>>> injection
>>> b5f74ecacc31 block, bfq: use half slice_idle as a threshold to check
>>> short ttime
>>>
>>> The two commits prefixed by >>> above were not previously mentioned by
>>> Jens, but I reverted them anyway because they showed up in the git log
>>> command.
>>>
>>> OK so, within 10 minutes the problem does happen still. This is
>>> block/bfq-iosched.c resulting from the above reverts, in case anyone
>>> wants to double check what I did:
>>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ykU7MpmylJuXVobODWiiaLJk-XOiAjSt/view?usp=sharing
>> 
>> Any suggestions for further testing? I could try go down farther in the bisect.txt list. The problem is if the hardware falls over on an unbootable kernel, I have to bug someone with LOM access. That's a limited resource.
>> 
>> 
>
> How about changing the scheduler either mq-deadline or noop, just to see 
> if this is also reproducible with a different scheduler. I guess noop 
> would imply the blk cgroup controller is going to be disabled

I already reported on that: always happens with bfq within an hour or less. Doesn't happen with mq-deadline for ~25+ hours. Does happen with bfq with the above patches removed. Does happen with cgroup.disabled=io set.

Sounds to me like it's something bfq depends on and is somehow becoming perturbed in a way that mq-deadline does not, and has changed between 5.11 and 5.12. I have no idea what's under bfq that matches this description.

-- 
Chris Murphy