lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] scsi: core: Fix stall if two threads request budget at the same time
Hi,

On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 7:04 PM Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 04:51:00PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:26 AM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 3/31/20 12:07 PM, Paolo Valente wrote:
> > > >> Il giorno 31 mar 2020, alle ore 03:41, Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> ha scritto:
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 07:49:06AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > > >>> It is possible for two threads to be running
> > > >>> blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched() at the same time with the same "hctx".
> > > >>> This is because there can be more than one caller to
> > > >>> __blk_mq_run_hw_queue() with the same "hctx" and hctx_lock() doesn't
> > > >>> prevent more than one thread from entering.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> If more than one thread is running blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched() at the
> > > >>> same time with the same "hctx", they may have contention acquiring
> > > >>> budget. The blk_mq_get_dispatch_budget() can eventually translate
> > > >>> into scsi_mq_get_budget(). If the device's "queue_depth" is 1 (not
> > > >>> uncommon) then only one of the two threads will be the one to
> > > >>> increment "device_busy" to 1 and get the budget.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The losing thread will break out of blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched() and
> > > >>> will stop dispatching requests. The assumption is that when more
> > > >>> budget is available later (when existing transactions finish) the
> > > >>> queue will be kicked again, perhaps in scsi_end_request().
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The winning thread now has budget and can go on to call
> > > >>> dispatch_request(). If dispatch_request() returns NULL here then we
> > > >>> have a potential problem. Specifically we'll now call
> > > >>
> > > >> I guess this problem should be BFQ specific. Now there is definitely
> > > >> requests in BFQ queue wrt. this hctx. However, looks this request is
> > > >> only available from another loser thread, and it won't be retrieved in
> > > >> the winning thread via e->type->ops.dispatch_request().
> > > >>
> > > >> Just wondering why BFQ is implemented in this way?
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > BFQ inherited this powerful non-working scheme from CFQ, some age ago.
> > > >
> > > > In more detail: if BFQ has at least one non-empty internal queue, then
> > > > is says of course that there is work to do. But if the currently
> > > > in-service queue is empty, and is expected to receive new I/O, then
> > > > BFQ plugs I/O dispatch to enforce service guarantees for the
> > > > in-service queue, i.e., BFQ responds NULL to a dispatch request.
> > >
> > > What BFQ is doing is fine, IFF it always ensures that the queue is run
> > > at some later time, if it returns "yep I have work" yet returns NULL
> > > when attempting to retrieve that work. Generally this should happen from
> > > subsequent IO completion, or whatever else condition will resolve the
> > > issue that is currently preventing dispatch of that request. Last resort
> > > would be a timer, but that can happen if you're slicing your scheduling
> > > somehow.
> >
> > I've been poking more at this today trying to understand why the idle
> > timer that Paolo says is in BFQ isn't doing what it should be doing.
> > I've been continuing to put most of my stream-of-consciousness at
> > <https://crbug.com/1061950> to avoid so much spamming of this thread.
> > In the trace I looked at most recently it looks like BFQ does try to
> > ensure that the queue is run at a later time, but at least in this
> > trace the later time is not late enough. Specifically the quick
> > summary of my recent trace:
> >
> > 28977309us - PID 2167 got the budget.
> > 28977518us - BFQ told PID 2167 that there was nothing to dispatch.
> > 28977702us - BFQ idle timer fires.
> > 28977725us - We start to try to dispatch as a result of BFQ's idle timer.
> > 28977732us - Dispatching that was a result of BFQ's idle timer can't get
> > budget and thus does nothing.
>
> Looks the BFQ idle timer may be re-tried given it knows there is work to do.

Yeah, it does seem like perhaps a BFQ fix like this would be ideal.


> > 28977780us - PID 2167 put the budget and exits since there was nothing
> > to dispatch.
> >
> > This is only one particular trace, but in this case BFQ did attempt to
> > rerun the queue after it returned NULL, but that ran almost
> > immediately after it returned NULL and thus ran into the race. :(
> >
> >
> > > > It would be very easy to change bfq_has_work so that it returns false
> > > > in case the in-service queue is empty, even if there is I/O
> > > > backlogged. My only concern is: since everything has worked with the
> > > > current scheme for probably 15 years, are we sure that everything is
> > > > still ok after we change this scheme?
> > >
> > > You're comparing apples to oranges, CFQ never worked within the blk-mq
> > > scheduling framework.
> > >
> > > That said, I don't think such a change is needed. If we currently have a
> > > hang due to this discrepancy between has_work and gets_work, then it
> > > sounds like we're not always re-running the queue as we should. From the
> > > original patch, the budget putting is not something the scheduler is
> > > involved with. Do we just need to ensure that if we put budget without
> > > having dispatched a request, we need to kick off dispatching again?
> >
> > By this you mean a change like this in blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched()?
> >
> > if (!rq) {
> > blk_mq_put_dispatch_budget(hctx);
> > + ret = true;
> > break;
> > }
>
> From Jens's tree, blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched() returns nothing.
>
> Which tree are you talking against?

Ah, right. Sorry. As per the cover letter, I've tested against the
Chrome OS 5.4 tree and also against mainline Linux and both
experienced the same behavior. It's slightly more convenient for me
to test against the Chrome OS 5.4 tree, so I've been focusing most of
my effort there.

As mentioned in the cover letter, in the Chrome OS 5.4 branch we have
an extra FROMLIST patch from Salman, specifically:

http://lore.kernel.org/r/20200207190416.99928-1-sqazi@google.com

...that's what makes the return value "bool" for me.


-Doug

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-04-01 04:33    [W:0.110 / U:2.248 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site