All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, hch@lst.de,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [for-4.14 RFC PATCH 1/2] dm rq: avoid deadlock if dm-mq is	stacked on old .request_fn device(s)
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 09:22:50 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170714072250.GC17046@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170713211217.52361-2-snitzer@redhat.com>

The problem here is the following:

blk_finish_request must always be called with the queue lock held,
it even has an assert.

Without blk-mq used by dm-rq, dm uses the block softirq to execute the
completion, which means we always have a different execution context and
can take the queue lock again without issuesi.

With blk-mq used by dm-rq, the the dm .complete handler that is the rough
equivalent of the softirq handler is called either directly if were are
on the same CPU, or using a IPI (hardirq) if not.  If this handler gets
called from a legacy request function it will be called with the
queue_lock held, but if it's called from a blk-mq driver or actually
uses the IPI no lock will be held.

When I did my blk-mq only for dm-mpath WIP patch my solution to that
was that I removed the ->complete handler entirely and just ran the
whole dm completion from the original hardirq context.  With that change
I know that for blk-mq we'll never hold the queue_lock (and the blk-mq
request free path doesn't care), and for legacy we always hold it,
so __blk_put_request can always be used.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Cc: hch@lst.de, dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [for-4.14 RFC PATCH 1/2] dm rq: avoid deadlock if dm-mq is stacked on old .request_fn device(s)
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 09:22:50 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170714072250.GC17046@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170713211217.52361-2-snitzer@redhat.com>

The problem here is the following:

blk_finish_request must always be called with the queue lock held,
it even has an assert.

Without blk-mq used by dm-rq, dm uses the block softirq to execute the
completion, which means we always have a different execution context and
can take the queue lock again without issuesi.

With blk-mq used by dm-rq, the the dm .complete handler that is the rough
equivalent of the softirq handler is called either directly if were are
on the same CPU, or using a IPI (hardirq) if not.  If this handler gets
called from a legacy request function it will be called with the
queue_lock held, but if it's called from a blk-mq driver or actually
uses the IPI no lock will be held.

When I did my blk-mq only for dm-mpath WIP patch my solution to that
was that I removed the ->complete handler entirely and just ran the
whole dm completion from the original hardirq context.  With that change
I know that for blk-mq we'll never hold the queue_lock (and the blk-mq
request free path doesn't care), and for legacy we always hold it,
so __blk_put_request can always be used.

  reply	other threads:[~2017-07-14  7:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-07-13 21:12 [for-4.14 RFC PATCH 0/2] dm rq: eliminate historic blk-mq and .request_fn queue stacking restrictions Mike Snitzer
2017-07-13 21:12 ` [for-4.14 RFC PATCH 1/2] dm rq: avoid deadlock if dm-mq is stacked on old .request_fn device(s) Mike Snitzer
2017-07-14  7:22   ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2017-07-14  7:22     ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-07-14 14:19     ` Mike Snitzer
2017-07-14 17:17       ` Ewan D. Milne
2017-07-14 21:15         ` Mike Snitzer
2017-07-13 21:12 ` [for-4.14 RFC PATCH 2/2] dm rq: eliminate historic blk-mq and .request_fn queue stacking restrictions Mike Snitzer
2017-07-14  7:12 ` [for-4.14 RFC PATCH 0/2] " Christoph Hellwig
2017-07-14 14:02   ` Mike Snitzer
2017-07-15  8:44     ` Christoph Hellwig

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=20170714072250.GC17046@lst.de \
    --to=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
    /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.