[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH] Fix deadlock with request based dm and some drivers



On 11/06/12 21:35, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2012-11-06 13:14, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
>> (Cc to dm-devel)
>>
>> On 11/06/12 20:29, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> I recently fixed a deadlock for a customer we have with
>>> the below patch. I have queued it up in my tree as not
>>> to lose it. Can I have an ack from you, or do you want
>>> to submit it yourself? I've marked it stable as well.
>>
>> Could you tell details about how the deadlock happened?
>>
>> dm's end_io always throws the completion handling to softirq:
>>   end_clone_request()
>>     dm_complete_request()
>>       blk_complete_request()
>>
>> then it is processed in softirq context:
>>   dm_softirq_done()
>>     dm_done()
>>       dm_end_request()
>>         rq_completed(run_queue=true)
>>           blk_run_queue()
>>
>> Since queue_lock is always held with interrupt disabled,
>> I couldn't see why it could deadlock.
>>
>> Request-based dm followed the completion model of scsi
>> mid layer. So similar code path exists in scsi, too.
>> For example:
>>   scsi_request_fn()
>>     scsi_kill_request()
>>       blk_complete_request()
>> then:
>>   scsi_softirq_done()
>>     scsi_io_completion()
>>       scsi_next_command()
>>         scsi_run_queue()
>>           spin_lock queue_lock
>>           __blk_run_queue()
>>
>> If calling run-queue from softirq_done_fn() can cause deadlock,
>> I'm afraid the problem is not limited to dm.
> 
> dm_softirq_done()
>     rq_completed()
>         blk_run_queue()
          ^^ this is for dm's queue
>             dm_request_fn()
>                 dm_dispatch_request()
>                     blk_insert_cloned_request()
>                         __elv_add_request()
>                             elv_insert()
>                                 blk_run_queue()
                                  ^^ this is for lower device's queue
>                                     ...
> 
> Basically you recurse back into the request handler, since it ends up
> running the queue.

But the queues are different as commented inline above.
So it should be ok. (from deadlock point of view)

> But I see I've been too focused on the older release,
> since we don't actually do that anymore after the plugging rewrite. So
> it should actually be safe in current kernels and hence the patch only
> needed for the stable series where that is not the case.

BTW, using blk_run_queue_async() in softirq_done_fn() might be good
from performance point of view? It may reduce latency of the softirq
and have an effect of batching request_fn calls.

-- 
Jun'ichi Nomura, NEC Corporation


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]