From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Elias Oltmanns <eo@nebensachen.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org
Subject: Re: Block: Prevent busy looping
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:13:35 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080417071335.GR12774@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87r6d5l9pb.fsf@denkblock.local>
On Thu, Apr 17 2008, Elias Oltmanns wrote:
> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 16 2008, Elias Oltmanns wrote:
> >> blk_run_queue() as well as blk_start_queue() plug the device on reentry
> >> and schedule blk_unplug_work() right afterwards. However,
> >> blk_plug_device() takes care of that already and makes sure that there is
> >> a short delay before blk_unplug_work() is scheduled. This is important
> >> to prevent busy looping and possibly system lockups as observed here:
> >> <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ide/28351>.
> >
> > If you call blk_start_queue() and blk_run_queue(), you better mean it.
> > There should be no delay. The only reason it does blk_plug_device() is
> > so that the work queue function will actually do some work.
>
> Well, I'm mainly concerned with blk_run_queue(). In a comment it says
> that it should recurse only once so as not to overrun the stack. On my
> machine, however, immediate rescheduling may have exactly as disastrous
> consequences as an overrunning stack would have since the system locks
> up completely.
>
> Just to get this straight: Are low level drivers allowed to rely on
> blk_run_queue() that there will be no loops or do they have to make sure
> that this function is not called from the request_fn() of the same
> queue?
It's not really designed for being called recursively. Which isn't the
problem imo, the problem is SCSI apparently being dumb and calling
blk_run_queue() all the time. blk_run_queue() must run the queue NOW. If
SCSI wants something like 'run the queue in a bit', it should use
blk_plug_device() instead.
> > In the newer kernels we just do:
> >
> > set_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_PLUGGED, &q->queue_flags);
> > kblockd_schedule_work(q, &q->unplug_work);
> >
> > instead, which is much better.
>
> Only as long as it doesn't get called from the request_fn() of the same
> queue. Otherwise, there may be no chance for other threads to clear the
> condition that caused blk_run_queue() to be called in the first place.
Broken usage.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-04-17 7:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-16 15:37 Block: Prevent busy looping Elias Oltmanns
2008-04-16 16:31 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-16 16:42 ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-16 22:24 ` Elias Oltmanns
2008-04-17 7:13 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2008-04-17 8:50 ` Elias Oltmanns
2008-06-11 7:11 ` Tejun Heo
2008-06-11 7:11 ` Tejun Heo
2008-06-11 7:05 ` Alan Cox
2008-06-11 7:05 ` Alan Cox
2008-06-11 8:03 ` Tejun Heo
2008-06-12 3:06 ` Tejun Heo
2008-06-12 11:32 ` Elias Oltmanns
2008-06-12 13:43 ` Tejun Heo
2008-06-12 14:18 ` James Bottomley
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080417071335.GR12774@kernel.dk \
--to=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=eo@nebensachen.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stable@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.