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

Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH]dm-mpath: fix for race condition between multipath_dtr and pg_init_done.



On Thu, Oct 17 2013 at  6:03pm -0400,
Merla, ShivaKrishna <ShivaKrishna Merla netapp com> wrote:

> > From: Mike Snitzer [mailto:snitzer redhat com]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:10 PM
> > To: Hannes Reinecke
> > Cc: Merla, ShivaKrishna; dm-devel redhat com; agk redhat com; Mikulas
> > Patocka
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH]dm-mpath: fix for race condition between
> > multipath_dtr and pg_init_done.
> > 
> > On Thu, Oct 17 2013 at  5:47pm -0400,
> > Hannes Reinecke <hare suse de> wrote:
> > 
> > > On 10/17/2013 08:53 PM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > >Thanks for reporting this.  Much appreciated.  More comments below.
> > > >
> > > >On Thu, Oct 17 2013 at  1:31pm -0400,
> > > >Merla, ShivaKrishna <ShivaKrishna Merla netapp com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>Whenever multipath_dtr is happening, we should prevent queueing any
> > further path
> > > >>activation work. There was a kernel panic where after pg_init_done()
> > decrements
> > > >>pg_init_in_progress to 0, wait_for_pg_init_completion call assumes
> > there are no
> > > >>more pending path management commands. But if pg_init_required is
> > set by
> > > >>pg_init_done call due to retriable mode_select errors , then
> > process_queued_ios()
> > > >>will again queue the path activation work. If free_multipath call has been
> > > >>completed by the time activate_path work is called, kernel panic was
> > seen on
> > > >>accessing multipath members.
> > > >
> > > >Your locking looks suspect to me, see comment inlined below
> > multipath_dtr
> > > >
> > > >But shouldn't we just train multipath_wait_for_pg_init_completion() to
> > > >look at m->pg_init_required?  Have it wait for both pg_init_required and
> > > >pg_init_in_progress to be zero?  We'd also have to audit that
> > > >pg_init_required cannot be set while pg_init_in_progress.
> > > >
> > > Hmm.
> > >
> > > We _could_ try to resolve it by pushing I/O back onto the request queue
> > > (cf my earlier post 'requeue I/O during pg_init').
> > >
> > > I was hoping to excite some comments with that, but seems to be my
> > > fate nowadays to send out patches with no reply.
> > 
> > patchwork caught it:
> > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/2969111/
> > 
> > I've just been distracted with other stuff the past week; but I'll be
> > looking closer at this issue (and your earlier patch) shortly and we'll
> > get a fix queued for 3.13.
> > 
> > > Anyway, maybe this will be giving it some more attention.
> > > It definitely would avoid this problem, by virtue of not having to
> > > queue I/O internally during pg_init, so we could easily tear down
> > > the queue.
> > 
> > Sounds good.
> 
> Thanks for your comments.  I agree we should lock while setting dtr_in_progress, I think I overlooked it as its handled in process_queued_ios as well.
> We looked into handling this in wait_for_pg_init_completion() but checking for pg_init_required here will not help as well ( until we prevent setting pg_init_required while pg_init_in_progress is set ).
> Here due to SCSI_DH_RETRY on mode_select, pg_init_done will set the pg_init_required as activation needs to be retried under normal 
> circumstances. But it completely differs when multipath target  is being destroyed.  Apparently I didn't see any pending_ios in our test
> while this is happening. Just path activations are held up since controller was returning 5/91/36 CC's. With this condition either one of pg_init_required or pg_init_in_progress flags are set all the time.
> Hannes patch will take care of preventing queueing of IO's when pg_init_in_progress is set, but currently running activation commands will not return until controller returns SUCCESS on mode_select.

So... do you have an updated patch with proper locking that takes
Hannes' patch into consideration?

I'll be reviewing hannes patch closer (for v3.13) tomorrow so if you'd
like your issue resolved in the near-term I'd appreciate us getting some
closer on proposed solutions.

Thanks,
Mike


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