[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 11/07/12 17:00, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2012-11-07 01:15, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
>> 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)
> 
> It's still not OK, some drivers end up doing spin_unlock_irq() in their
> request_fn. Running unknown request_fn from ipi/irq is a bad idea, imho,
> it'll quickly cause problems.

Though I still don't think there is actual deadlock because
dm's queue lock is released before dm_dispatch_request(),
I see your point why it's potentially bad.

>>> 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.
> 
> Yes, I argued the same for the original people who saw the problem. It
> is quite an extensive and expensive path to have off the IPI handler. So
> from that point of view, I'd recommend the patch as well.

Thank you for confirmation.
If it's good for performance, the patch is fine with me.

-- 
Jun'ichi Nomura, NEC Corporation


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