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

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 2/2] dm: stay in blk_queue_bypass until queue becomes initialized



On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 07:15:08PM +0900, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
> On 10/27/12 05:21, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 06:41:11PM +0900, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
> >> [PATCH] dm: stay in blk_queue_bypass until queue becomes initialized
> >>
> >> With 749fefe677 ("block: lift the initial queue bypass mode on
> >> blk_register_queue() instead of blk_init_allocated_queue()"),
> >> add_disk() eventually calls blk_queue_bypass_end().
> >> This change invokes the following warning when multipath is used.
> >>
> >>   BUG: scheduling while atomic: multipath/2460/0x00000002
> >>   1 lock held by multipath/2460:
> >>    #0:  (&md->type_lock){......}, at: [<ffffffffa019fb05>] dm_lock_md_type+0x17/0x19 [dm_mod]
> >>   Modules linked in: ...
> >>   Pid: 2460, comm: multipath Tainted: G        W    3.7.0-rc2 #1
> >>   Call Trace:
> >>    [<ffffffff810723ae>] __schedule_bug+0x6a/0x78
> >>    [<ffffffff81428ba2>] __schedule+0xb4/0x5e0
> >>    [<ffffffff814291e6>] schedule+0x64/0x66
> >>    [<ffffffff8142773a>] schedule_timeout+0x39/0xf8
> >>    [<ffffffff8108ad5f>] ? put_lock_stats+0xe/0x29
> >>    [<ffffffff8108ae30>] ? lock_release_holdtime+0xb6/0xbb
> >>    [<ffffffff814289e3>] wait_for_common+0x9d/0xee
> >>    [<ffffffff8107526c>] ? try_to_wake_up+0x206/0x206
> >>    [<ffffffff810c0eb8>] ? kfree_call_rcu+0x1c/0x1c
> >>    [<ffffffff81428aec>] wait_for_completion+0x1d/0x1f
> >>    [<ffffffff810611f9>] wait_rcu_gp+0x5d/0x7a
> >>    [<ffffffff81061216>] ? wait_rcu_gp+0x7a/0x7a
> >>    [<ffffffff8106fb18>] ? complete+0x21/0x53
> >>    [<ffffffff810c0556>] synchronize_rcu+0x1e/0x20
> >>    [<ffffffff811dd903>] blk_queue_bypass_start+0x5d/0x62
> >>    [<ffffffff811ee109>] blkcg_activate_policy+0x73/0x270
> >>    [<ffffffff81130521>] ? kmem_cache_alloc_node_trace+0xc7/0x108
> >>    [<ffffffff811f04b3>] cfq_init_queue+0x80/0x28e
> >>    [<ffffffffa01a1600>] ? dm_blk_ioctl+0xa7/0xa7 [dm_mod]
> >>    [<ffffffff811d8c41>] elevator_init+0xe1/0x115
> >>    [<ffffffff811e229f>] ? blk_queue_make_request+0x54/0x59
> >>    [<ffffffff811dd743>] blk_init_allocated_queue+0x8c/0x9e
> >>    [<ffffffffa019ffcd>] dm_setup_md_queue+0x36/0xaa [dm_mod]
> >>    [<ffffffffa01a60e6>] table_load+0x1bd/0x2c8 [dm_mod]
> >>    [<ffffffffa01a7026>] ctl_ioctl+0x1d6/0x236 [dm_mod]
> >>    [<ffffffffa01a5f29>] ? table_clear+0xaa/0xaa [dm_mod]
> >>    [<ffffffffa01a7099>] dm_ctl_ioctl+0x13/0x17 [dm_mod]
> >>    [<ffffffff811479fc>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x3fb/0x441
> >>    [<ffffffff811b643c>] ? file_has_perm+0x8a/0x99
> >>    [<ffffffff81147aa0>] sys_ioctl+0x5e/0x82
> >>    [<ffffffff812010be>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
> >>    [<ffffffff814310d9>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> >>
> >> The warning means during queue initialization blk_queue_bypass_start()
> >> calls sleeping function (synchronize_rcu) while dm holds md->type_lock.
> > 
> > md->type_lock is a mutex, isn't it? I thought we are allowed to block
> > and schedule out under mutex?
> 
> Hm, you are right. It's a mutex.
> The warning occurs only if I turned on CONFIG_PREEMPT=y.

Ok, so the question is what's wrong with calling synchronize_rcu() inside
a mutex with CONFIG_PREEMPT=y. I don't know. Ccing paul mckenney  and
peterz.

> 
> > add_disk() also calls disk_alloc_events() which does kzalloc(GFP_KERNEL).
> > So we already have code which can block/wait under md->type_lock. I am
> > not sure why should we get this warning under a mutex.
> 
> add_disk() is called without md->type_lock.
> 
> Call flow is like this:
> 
> dm_create
>   alloc_dev
>     blk_alloc_queue
>     alloc_disk
>     add_disk
>       blk_queue_bypass_end [with 3.7-rc2]
> 
> table_load
>   dm_lock_md_type [takes md->type_lock]
>   dm_setup_md_queue
>     blk_init_allocated_queue [when DM_TYPE_REQUEST_BASED]
>       elevator_init
>         blkcg_activate_policy
>           blk_queue_bypass_start <-- THIS triggers the warning
>           blk_queue_bypass_end
>       blk_queue_bypass_end [with 3.6]
>   dm_unlock_md_type
> 
> blk_queue_bypass_start() in blkcg_activate_policy was nested call,
> that did nothing, with 3.6.
> With 3.7-rc2, it becomes the initial call and does
> actual draining stuff.

Ok. Once we know what's wrong, we should be able to figure out the 
right solution. Artificially putting queue one level deep in bypass
to avoid calling synchronize_rcu() sounds bad.

Thanks
Vivek

> 
> -- 
> Jun'ichi Nomura, NEC Corporation


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