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: <20240811101921.4031-2-songmuchun@bytedance.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2024 18:19:18 +0800
From: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
To: axboe@...nel.dk
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] block: fix request starvation when queue is stopped or quiesced

Supposing the following scenario with a virtio_blk driver.

CPU0                                    CPU1                                    CPU2

blk_mq_try_issue_directly()
    __blk_mq_issue_directly()
        q->mq_ops->queue_rq()
            virtio_queue_rq()
                blk_mq_stop_hw_queue()
                                        blk_mq_try_issue_directly()             virtblk_done()
                                            if (blk_mq_hctx_stopped())
    blk_mq_request_bypass_insert()                                                  blk_mq_start_stopped_hw_queue()
    blk_mq_run_hw_queue()                                                               blk_mq_run_hw_queue()
                                                blk_mq_insert_request()
                                                return // Who is responsible for dispatching this IO request?

After CPU0 has marked the queue as stopped, CPU1 will see the queue is stopped.
But before CPU1 puts the request on the dispatch list, CPU2 receives the interrupt
of completion of request, so it will run the hardware queue and marks the queue
as non-stopped. Meanwhile, CPU1 also runs the same hardware queue. After both CPU1
and CPU2 complete blk_mq_run_hw_queue(), CPU1 just puts the request to the same
hardware queue and returns. Seems it misses dispatching a request. Fix it by
running the hardware queue explicitly. I think blk_mq_request_issue_directly()
should handle a similar problem.

Signed-off-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
---
 block/blk-mq.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
index e3c3c0c21b553..b2d0f22de0c7f 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq.c
@@ -2619,6 +2619,7 @@ static void blk_mq_try_issue_directly(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
 
 	if (blk_mq_hctx_stopped(hctx) || blk_queue_quiesced(rq->q)) {
 		blk_mq_insert_request(rq, 0);
+		blk_mq_run_hw_queue(hctx, false);
 		return;
 	}
 
@@ -2649,6 +2650,7 @@ static blk_status_t blk_mq_request_issue_directly(struct request *rq, bool last)
 
 	if (blk_mq_hctx_stopped(hctx) || blk_queue_quiesced(rq->q)) {
 		blk_mq_insert_request(rq, 0);
+		blk_mq_run_hw_queue(hctx, false);
 		return BLK_STS_OK;
 	}
 
-- 
2.20.1


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ