Re: [PATCH 3/4] blk-rq-qos: fix possible deadlock

[Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 04:24:23PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 在 2025/10/14 16:13, Ming Lei 写道:
> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 10:21:48AM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> > > Currently rq-qos debugfs entries is created from rq_qos_add(), while
> > > rq_qos_add() requires queue to be freezed. This can deadlock because
> > > creating new entries can trigger fs reclaim.
> > > 
> > > Fix this problem by delaying creating rq-qos debugfs entries until
> > > it's initialization is complete.
> > > 
> > > - For wbt, it can be initialized by default of by blk-sysfs, fix it by
> > >    calling blk_mq_debugfs_register_rq_qos() after wbt_init;
> > > - For other policies, they can only be initialized by blkg configuration,
> > >    fix it by calling blk_mq_debugfs_register_rq_qos() from
> > >    blkg_conf_end();
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
> > > ---
> > >   block/blk-cgroup.c | 6 ++++++
> > >   block/blk-rq-qos.c | 7 -------
> > >   block/blk-sysfs.c  | 4 ++++
> > >   block/blk-wbt.c    | 7 ++++++-
> > >   4 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/block/blk-cgroup.c b/block/blk-cgroup.c
> > > index d93654334854..e4ccabf132c0 100644
> > > --- a/block/blk-cgroup.c
> > > +++ b/block/blk-cgroup.c
> > > @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
> > >   #include "blk-cgroup.h"
> > >   #include "blk-ioprio.h"
> > >   #include "blk-throttle.h"
> > > +#include "blk-mq-debugfs.h"
> > >   static void __blkcg_rstat_flush(struct blkcg *blkcg, int cpu);
> > > @@ -746,6 +747,11 @@ void blkg_conf_end(struct blkg_conf_ctx *ctx)
> > >   	mutex_unlock(&q->elevator_lock);
> > >   	blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(q, ctx->memflags);
> > >   	blkdev_put_no_open(ctx->bdev);
> > > +
> > > +	mutex_lock(&q->debugfs_mutex);
> > > +	blk_mq_debugfs_register_rq_qos(q);
> > > +	mutex_unlock(&q->debugfs_mutex);
> > > +
> > >   }
> > >   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(blkg_conf_end);
> > > diff --git a/block/blk-rq-qos.c b/block/blk-rq-qos.c
> > > index 654478dfbc20..d7ce99ce2e80 100644
> > > --- a/block/blk-rq-qos.c
> > > +++ b/block/blk-rq-qos.c
> > > @@ -347,13 +347,6 @@ int rq_qos_add(struct rq_qos *rqos, struct gendisk *disk, enum rq_qos_id id,
> > >   	blk_queue_flag_set(QUEUE_FLAG_QOS_ENABLED, q);
> > >   	blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(q, memflags);
> > > -
> > > -	if (rqos->ops->debugfs_attrs) {
> > > -		mutex_lock(&q->debugfs_mutex);
> > > -		blk_mq_debugfs_register_rqos(rqos);
> > > -		mutex_unlock(&q->debugfs_mutex);
> > > -	}
> > > -
> > >   	return 0;
> > >   ebusy:
> > >   	blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(q, memflags);
> > > diff --git a/block/blk-sysfs.c b/block/blk-sysfs.c
> > > index 76c47fe9b8d6..52bb4db25cf5 100644
> > > --- a/block/blk-sysfs.c
> > > +++ b/block/blk-sysfs.c
> > > @@ -688,6 +688,10 @@ static ssize_t queue_wb_lat_store(struct gendisk *disk, const char *page,
> > >   	mutex_unlock(&disk->rqos_state_mutex);
> > >   	blk_mq_unquiesce_queue(q);
> > > +
> > > +	mutex_lock(&q->debugfs_mutex);
> > > +	blk_mq_debugfs_register_rq_qos(q);
> > > +	mutex_unlock(&q->debugfs_mutex);
> > >   out:
> > >   	blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(q, memflags);
> > > diff --git a/block/blk-wbt.c b/block/blk-wbt.c
> > > index eb8037bae0bd..a120b5ba54db 100644
> > > --- a/block/blk-wbt.c
> > > +++ b/block/blk-wbt.c
> > > @@ -724,8 +724,13 @@ void wbt_enable_default(struct gendisk *disk)
> > >   	if (!blk_queue_registered(q))
> > >   		return;
> > > -	if (queue_is_mq(q) && enable)
> > > +	if (queue_is_mq(q) && enable) {
> > >   		wbt_init(disk);
> > > +
> > > +		mutex_lock(&q->debugfs_mutex);
> > > +		blk_mq_debugfs_register_rq_qos(q);
> > > +		mutex_unlock(&q->debugfs_mutex);
> > > +	}
> > 
> > ->debugfs_mutex only may be not enough, because blk_mq_debugfs_register_rq_qos()
> > has to traverse rq_qos single list list, you may have to grab q->rq_qos_mutex
> > for protect the list.
> > 
> 
> I think we can't grab rq_qos_mutex to create debugfs entries, right?

It depends on the finalized order between rq_qos_mutex and freezing queue.

> With the respect of this, perhaps we can grab debugfs_mutex to protect
> insering rq_qos list instead?

No, debugfs_mutex shouldn't protect rq_qos list, and rq_qos_mutex is
supposed to do the job at least from naming viewpoint.


Thanks,
Ming