| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 11:20:13 -0700
From: junxiao.bi@...cle.com
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Linux regressions mailing list <regressions@...ts.linux.dev>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Dan Moulding <dan@...m.net>, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [REGRESSION] 6.7.1: md: raid5 hang and unresponsive system;
successfully bisected
On 3/12/24 6:20 PM, Yu Kuai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 在 2024/03/13 6:56, junxiao.bi@...cle.com 写道:
>> On 3/10/24 6:50 PM, Yu Kuai wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> 在 2024/03/09 7:49, junxiao.bi@...cle.com 写道:
>>>> Here is the root cause for this issue:
>>>>
>>>> Commit 5e2cf333b7bd ("md/raid5: Wait for MD_SB_CHANGE_PENDING in
>>>> raid5d") introduced a regression, it got reverted through commit
>>>> bed9e27baf52 ("Revert "md/raid5: Wait for MD_SB_CHANGE_PENDING in
>>>> raid5d"). To fix the original issue commit 5e2cf333b7bd was fixing,
>>>> commit d6e035aad6c0 ("md: bypass block throttle for superblock
>>>> update") was created, it avoids md superblock write getting
>>>> throttled by block layer which is good, but md superblock write
>>>> could be stuck in block layer due to block flush as well, and that
>>>> is what was happening in this regression report.
>>>>
>>>> Process "md0_reclaim" got stuck while waiting IO for md superblock
>>>> write done, that IO was marked with REQ_PREFLUSH | REQ_FUA flags,
>>>> these 3 steps ( PREFLUSH, DATA and POSTFLUSH ) will be executed
>>>> before done, the hung of this process is because the last step
>>>> "POSTFLUSH" never done. And that was because of process
>>>> "md0_raid5" submitted another IO with REQ_FUA flag marked just
>>>> before that step started. To handle that IO, blk_insert_flush()
>>>> will be invoked and hit "REQ_FSEQ_DATA | REQ_FSEQ_POSTFLUSH" case
>>>> where "fq->flush_data_in_flight" will be increased. When the IO for
>>>> md superblock write was to issue "POSTFLUSH" step through
>>>> blk_kick_flush(), it found that "fq->flush_data_in_flight" was not
>>>> zero, so it will skip that step, that is expected, because flush
>>>> will be triggered when "fq->flush_data_in_flight" dropped to zero.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately here that inflight data IO from "md0_raid5" will
>>>> never done, because it was added into the blk_plug list of that
>>>> process, but "md0_raid5" run into infinite loop due to
>>>> "MD_SB_CHANGE_PENDING" which made it never had a chance to finish
>>>> the blk plug until "MD_SB_CHANGE_PENDING" was cleared. Process
>>>> "md0_reclaim" was supposed to clear that flag but it was stuck by
>>>> "md0_raid5", so this is a deadlock.
>>>>
>>>> Looks like the approach in the RFC patch trying to resolve the
>>>> regression of commit 5e2cf333b7bd can help this issue. Once
>>>> "md0_raid5" starts looping due to "MD_SB_CHANGE_PENDING", it should
>>>> release all its staging IO requests to avoid blocking others. Also
>>>> a cond_reschedule() will avoid it run into lockup.
>>>
>>> The analysis sounds good, however, it seems to me that the behaviour
>>> raid5d() pings the cpu to wait for 'MD_SB_CHANGE_PENDING' to be cleared
>>> is not reasonable, because md_check_recovery() must hold
>>> 'reconfig_mutex' to clear the flag.
>>
>> That's the behavior before commit 5e2cf333b7bd which was added into
>> Sep 2022, so this behavior has been with raid5 for many years.
>>
>
> Yes, it exists for a long time doesn't mean it's good. It is really
> weird to hold spinlock to wait for a mutex.
I am confused about this, where is the code that waiting mutex while
holding spinlock, wouldn't that cause a deadlock?
>>
>>>
>>> Look at raid1/raid10, there are two different behaviour that seems can
>>> avoid this problem as well:
>>>
>>> 1) blk_start_plug() is delayed until all failed IO is handled. This
>>> look
>>> reasonable because in order to get better performance, IO should be
>>> handled by submitted thread as much as possible, and meanwhile, the
>>> deadlock can be triggered here.
>>> 2) if 'MD_SB_CHANGE_PENDING' is not cleared by md_check_recovery(),
>>> skip
>>> the handling of failed IO, and when mddev_unlock() is called, daemon
>>> thread will be woken up again to handle failed IO.
>>>
>>> How about the following patch?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kuai
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
>>> index 3ad5f3c7f91e..0b2e6060f2c9 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
>>> @@ -6720,7 +6720,6 @@ static void raid5d(struct md_thread *thread)
>>>
>>> md_check_recovery(mddev);
>>>
>>> - blk_start_plug(&plug);
>>> handled = 0;
>>> spin_lock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
>>> while (1) {
>>> @@ -6728,6 +6727,14 @@ static void raid5d(struct md_thread *thread)
>>> int batch_size, released;
>>> unsigned int offset;
>>>
>>> + /*
>>> + * md_check_recovery() can't clear sb_flags, usually
>>> because of
>>> + * 'reconfig_mutex' can't be grabbed, wait for
>>> mddev_unlock() to
>>> + * wake up raid5d().
>>> + */
>>> + if (test_bit(MD_SB_CHANGE_PENDING, &mddev->sb_flags))
>>> + goto skip;
>>> +
>>> released = release_stripe_list(conf,
>>> conf->temp_inactive_list);
>>> if (released)
>>> clear_bit(R5_DID_ALLOC, &conf->cache_state);
>>> @@ -6766,8 +6773,8 @@ static void raid5d(struct md_thread *thread)
>>> spin_lock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
>>> }
>>> }
>>> +skip:
>>> pr_debug("%d stripes handled\n", handled);
>>> -
>>> spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
>>> if (test_and_clear_bit(R5_ALLOC_MORE, &conf->cache_state) &&
>>> mutex_trylock(&conf->cache_size_mutex)) {
>>> @@ -6779,6 +6786,7 @@ static void raid5d(struct md_thread *thread)
>>> mutex_unlock(&conf->cache_size_mutex);
>>> }
>>>
>>> + blk_start_plug(&plug);
>>> flush_deferred_bios(conf);
>>>
>>> r5l_flush_stripe_to_raid(conf->log);
>>
>> This patch eliminated the benefit of blk_plug, i think it will not be
>> good for IO performance perspective?
>
> There is only one daemon thread, so IO should not be handled here as
> much as possible. The IO should be handled by the thread that is
> submitting the IO, and let daemon to hanldle the case that IO failed or
> can't be submitted at that time.
I am not sure how much it will impact regarding drop the blk_plug.
Song, what's your take on this?
Thanks,
Junxiao.
>
> Thanks,
> Kuai
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Junxiao.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/raid/msg75338.html
>>>>
>>>> Dan, can you try the following patch?
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
>>>> index de771093b526..474462abfbdc 100644
>>>> --- a/block/blk-core.c
>>>> +++ b/block/blk-core.c
>>>> @@ -1183,6 +1183,7 @@ void __blk_flush_plug(struct blk_plug *plug,
>>>> bool from_schedule)
>>>> if (unlikely(!rq_list_empty(plug->cached_rq)))
>>>> blk_mq_free_plug_rqs(plug);
>>>> }
>>>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__blk_flush_plug);
>>>>
>>>> /**
>>>> * blk_finish_plug - mark the end of a batch of submitted I/O
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
>>>> index 8497880135ee..26e09cdf46a3 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
>>>> @@ -6773,6 +6773,11 @@ static void raid5d(struct md_thread *thread)
>>>> spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
>>>> md_check_recovery(mddev);
>>>> spin_lock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
>>>> + blk_flush_plug(&plug, false);
>>>> + cond_resched();
>>>> + spin_lock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> pr_debug("%d stripes handled\n", handled);
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Junxiao.
>>>>
>>>> On 3/1/24 12:26 PM, junxiao.bi@...cle.com wrote:
>>>>> Hi Dan & Song,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have not root cause this yet, but would like share some findings
>>>>> from the vmcore Dan shared. From what i can see, this doesn't look
>>>>> like a md issue, but something wrong with block layer or below.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. There were multiple process hung by IO over 15mins.
>>>>>
>>>>> crash> ps -m | grep UN
>>>>> [0 00:15:50.424] [UN] PID: 957 TASK: ffff88810baa0ec0 CPU: 1
>>>>> COMMAND: "jbd2/dm-3-8"
>>>>> [0 00:15:56.151] [UN] PID: 1835 TASK: ffff888108a28ec0 CPU: 2
>>>>> COMMAND: "dd"
>>>>> [0 00:15:56.187] [UN] PID: 876 TASK: ffff888108bebb00 CPU: 3
>>>>> COMMAND: "md0_reclaim"
>>>>> [0 00:15:56.185] [UN] PID: 1914 TASK: ffff8881015e6740 CPU: 1
>>>>> COMMAND: "kworker/1:2"
>>>>> [0 00:15:56.255] [UN] PID: 403 TASK: ffff888101351d80 CPU: 7
>>>>> COMMAND: "kworker/u21:1"
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Let pick md0_reclaim to take a look, it is waiting done
>>>>> super_block update. We can see there were two pending superblock
>>>>> write and other pending io for the underling physical disk, which
>>>>> caused these process hung.
>>>>>
>>>>> crash> bt 876
>>>>> PID: 876 TASK: ffff888108bebb00 CPU: 3 COMMAND:
>>>>> "md0_reclaim"
>>>>> #0 [ffffc900008c3d10] __schedule at ffffffff81ac18ac
>>>>> #1 [ffffc900008c3d70] schedule at ffffffff81ac1d82
>>>>> #2 [ffffc900008c3d88] md_super_wait at ffffffff817df27a
>>>>> #3 [ffffc900008c3dd0] md_update_sb at ffffffff817df609
>>>>> #4 [ffffc900008c3e20] r5l_do_reclaim at ffffffff817d1cf4
>>>>> #5 [ffffc900008c3e98] md_thread at ffffffff817db1ef
>>>>> #6 [ffffc900008c3ef8] kthread at ffffffff8114f8ee
>>>>> #7 [ffffc900008c3f30] ret_from_fork at ffffffff8108bb98
>>>>> #8 [ffffc900008c3f50] ret_from_fork_asm at ffffffff81000da1
>>>>>
>>>>> crash> mddev.pending_writes,disks 0xffff888108335800
>>>>> pending_writes = {
>>>>> counter = 2 <<<<<<<<<< 2 active super block write
>>>>> },
>>>>> disks = {
>>>>> next = 0xffff88810ce85a00,
>>>>> prev = 0xffff88810ce84c00
>>>>> },
>>>>> crash> list -l md_rdev.same_set -s md_rdev.kobj.name,nr_pending
>>>>> 0xffff88810ce85a00
>>>>> ffff88810ce85a00
>>>>> kobj.name = 0xffff8881067c1a00 "dev-dm-1",
>>>>> nr_pending = {
>>>>> counter = 0
>>>>> },
>>>>> ffff8881083ace00
>>>>> kobj.name = 0xffff888100a93280 "dev-sde",
>>>>> nr_pending = {
>>>>> counter = 10 <<<<
>>>>> },
>>>>> ffff8881010ad200
>>>>> kobj.name = 0xffff8881012721c8 "dev-sdc",
>>>>> nr_pending = {
>>>>> counter = 8 <<<<<
>>>>> },
>>>>> ffff88810ce84c00
>>>>> kobj.name = 0xffff888100325f08 "dev-sdd",
>>>>> nr_pending = {
>>>>> counter = 2 <<<<<
>>>>> },
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. From block layer, i can find the inflight IO for md superblock
>>>>> write which has been pending 955s which matches with the hung time
>>>>> of "md0_reclaim"
>>>>>
>>>>> crash>
>>>>> request.q,mq_hctx,cmd_flags,rq_flags,start_time_ns,bio,biotail,state,__data_len,flush,end_io
>>>>> ffff888103b4c300
>>>>> q = 0xffff888103a00d80,
>>>>> mq_hctx = 0xffff888103c5d200,
>>>>> cmd_flags = 38913,
>>>>> rq_flags = 139408,
>>>>> start_time_ns = 1504179024146,
>>>>> bio = 0x0,
>>>>> biotail = 0xffff888120758e40,
>>>>> state = MQ_RQ_COMPLETE,
>>>>> __data_len = 0,
>>>>> flush = {
>>>>> seq = 3, <<<< REQ_FSEQ_PREFLUSH | REQ_FSEQ_DATA
>>>>> saved_end_io = 0x0
>>>>> },
>>>>> end_io = 0xffffffff815186e0 <mq_flush_data_end_io>,
>>>>>
>>>>> crash> p tk_core.timekeeper.tkr_mono.base
>>>>> $1 = 2459916243002
>>>>> crash> eval 2459916243002-1504179024146
>>>>> hexadecimal: de86609f28
>>>>> decimal: 955737218856 <<<<<<< IO pending time is 955s
>>>>> octal: 15720630117450
>>>>> binary:
>>>>> 0000000000000000000000001101111010000110011000001001111100101000
>>>>>
>>>>> crash> bio.bi_iter,bi_end_io 0xffff888120758e40
>>>>> bi_iter = {
>>>>> bi_sector = 8, <<<< super block offset
>>>>> bi_size = 0,
>>>>> bi_idx = 0,
>>>>> bi_bvec_done = 0
>>>>> },
>>>>> bi_end_io = 0xffffffff817dca50 <super_written>,
>>>>> crash> dev -d | grep ffff888103a00d80
>>>>> 8 ffff8881003ab000 sdd ffff888103a00d80 0 0 0
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. Check above request, even its state is "MQ_RQ_COMPLETE", but it
>>>>> is still pending. That's because each md superblock write was
>>>>> marked with REQ_PREFLUSH | REQ_FUA, so it will be handled in 3
>>>>> steps: pre_flush, data, and post_flush. Once each step complete,
>>>>> it will be marked in "request.flush.seq", here the value is 3,
>>>>> which is REQ_FSEQ_PREFLUSH | REQ_FSEQ_DATA, so the last step
>>>>> "post_flush" has not be done. Another wired thing is that
>>>>> blk_flush_queue.flush_data_in_flight is still 1 even "data" step
>>>>> already done.
>>>>>
>>>>> crash> blk_mq_hw_ctx.fq 0xffff888103c5d200
>>>>> fq = 0xffff88810332e240,
>>>>> crash> blk_flush_queue 0xffff88810332e240
>>>>> struct blk_flush_queue {
>>>>> mq_flush_lock = {
>>>>> {
>>>>> rlock = {
>>>>> raw_lock = {
>>>>> {
>>>>> val = {
>>>>> counter = 0
>>>>> },
>>>>> {
>>>>> locked = 0 '\000',
>>>>> pending = 0 '\000'
>>>>> },
>>>>> {
>>>>> locked_pending = 0,
>>>>> tail = 0
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> },
>>>>> flush_pending_idx = 1,
>>>>> flush_running_idx = 1,
>>>>> rq_status = 0 '\000',
>>>>> flush_pending_since = 4296171408,
>>>>> flush_queue = {{
>>>>> next = 0xffff88810332e250,
>>>>> prev = 0xffff88810332e250
>>>>> }, {
>>>>> next = 0xffff888103b4c348, <<<< the request is in this list
>>>>> prev = 0xffff888103b4c348
>>>>> }},
>>>>> flush_data_in_flight = 1, >>>>>> still 1
>>>>> flush_rq = 0xffff888103c2e000
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> crash> list 0xffff888103b4c348
>>>>> ffff888103b4c348
>>>>> ffff88810332e260
>>>>>
>>>>> crash> request.tag,state,ref 0xffff888103c2e000 >>>> flush_rq of
>>>>> hw queue
>>>>> tag = -1,
>>>>> state = MQ_RQ_IDLE,
>>>>> ref = {
>>>>> counter = 0
>>>>> },
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. Looks like the block layer or underlying(scsi/virtio-scsi) may
>>>>> have some issue which leading to the io request from md layer
>>>>> stayed in a partial complete statue. I can't see how this can be
>>>>> related with the commit bed9e27baf52 ("Revert "md/raid5: Wait for
>>>>> MD_SB_CHANGE_PENDING in raid5d"")
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dan,
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you able to reproduce using some regular scsi disk, would like
>>>>> to rule out whether this is related with virtio-scsi?
>>>>>
>>>>> And I see the kernel version is 6.8.0-rc5 from vmcore, is this the
>>>>> official mainline v6.8-rc5 without any other patches?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Junxiao.
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/23/24 6:13 PM, Song Liu wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 12:07 AM Linux regression tracking (Thorsten
>>>>>> Leemhuis) <regressions@...mhuis.info> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 21.02.24 00:06, Dan Moulding wrote:
>>>>>>>> Just a friendly reminder that this regression still exists on the
>>>>>>>> mainline. It has been reverted in 6.7 stable. But I upgraded a
>>>>>>>> development system to 6.8-rc5 today and immediately hit this issue
>>>>>>>> again. Then I saw that it hasn't yet been reverted in Linus' tree.
>>>>>>> Song Liu, what's the status here? I aware that you fixed with
>>>>>>> quite a
>>>>>>> few regressions recently, but it seems like resolving this one is
>>>>>>> stalled. Or were you able to reproduce the issue or make some
>>>>>>> progress
>>>>>>> and I just missed it?
>>>>>> Sorry for the delay with this issue. I have been occupied with some
>>>>>> other stuff this week.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't got luck to reproduce this issue. I will spend more
>>>>>> time looking
>>>>>> into it next week.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if not, what's the way forward here wrt to the release of 6.8?
>>>>>>> Revert the culprit and try again later? Or is that not an option
>>>>>>> for one
>>>>>>> reason or another?
>>>>>> If we don't make progress with it in the next week, we will do
>>>>>> the revert,
>>>>>> same as we did with stable kernels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or do we assume that this is not a real issue? That it's caused
>>>>>>> by some
>>>>>>> oddity (bit-flip in the metadata or something like that?) only
>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>> found in Dan's setup?
>>>>>> I don't think this is because of oddities. Hopefully we can get more
>>>>>> information about this soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Song
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ciao, Thorsten (wearing his 'the Linux kernel's regression
>>>>>>> tracker' hat)
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Everything you wanna know about Linux kernel regression tracking:
>>>>>>> https://linux-regtracking.leemhuis.info/about/#tldr
>>>>>>> If I did something stupid, please tell me, as explained on that
>>>>>>> page.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #regzbot poke
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>
>> .
>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists