Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] nvme: Convert tag_list mutex to rwsemaphore to avoid deadlock

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

On Mon, Nov 17, 2025 at 12:23:53PM -0800, Mohamed Khalfella wrote:
> blk_mq_{add,del}_queue_tag_set() functions add and remove queues from
> tagset, the functions make sure that tagset and queues are marked as
> shared when two or more queues are attached to the same tagset.
> Initially a tagset starts as unshared and when the number of added
> queues reaches two, blk_mq_add_queue_tag_set() marks it as shared along
> with all the queues attached to it. When the number of attached queues
> drops to 1 blk_mq_del_queue_tag_set() need to mark both the tagset and
> the remaining queues as unshared.
> 
> Both functions need to freeze current queues in tagset before setting on
> unsetting BLK_MQ_F_TAG_QUEUE_SHARED flag. While doing so, both functions
> hold set->tag_list_lock mutex, which makes sense as we do not want
> queues to be added or deleted in the process. This used to work fine
> until commit 98d81f0df70c ("nvme: use blk_mq_[un]quiesce_tagset")
> made the nvme driver quiesce tagset instead of quiscing individual
> queues. blk_mq_quiesce_tagset() does the job and quiesce the queues in
> set->tag_list while holding set->tag_list_lock also.
> 
> This results in deadlock between two threads with these stacktraces:
> 
>   __schedule+0x48e/0xed0
>   schedule+0x5a/0xc0
>   schedule_preempt_disabled+0x11/0x20
>   __mutex_lock.constprop.0+0x3cc/0x760
>   blk_mq_quiesce_tagset+0x26/0xd0
>   nvme_dev_disable_locked+0x77/0x280 [nvme]
>   nvme_timeout+0x268/0x320 [nvme]
>   blk_mq_handle_expired+0x5d/0x90
>   bt_iter+0x7e/0x90
>   blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter+0x2b2/0x590
>   ? __blk_mq_complete_request_remote+0x10/0x10
>   ? __blk_mq_complete_request_remote+0x10/0x10
>   blk_mq_timeout_work+0x15b/0x1a0
>   process_one_work+0x133/0x2f0
>   ? mod_delayed_work_on+0x90/0x90
>   worker_thread+0x2ec/0x400
>   ? mod_delayed_work_on+0x90/0x90
>   kthread+0xe2/0x110
>   ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20
>   ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x50
>   ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20
>   ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20
> 
>   __schedule+0x48e/0xed0
>   schedule+0x5a/0xc0
>   blk_mq_freeze_queue_wait+0x62/0x90
>   ? destroy_sched_domains_rcu+0x30/0x30
>   blk_mq_exit_queue+0x151/0x180
>   disk_release+0xe3/0xf0
>   device_release+0x31/0x90
>   kobject_put+0x6d/0x180
>   nvme_scan_ns+0x858/0xc90 [nvme_core]
>   ? nvme_scan_work+0x281/0x560 [nvme_core]
>   nvme_scan_work+0x281/0x560 [nvme_core]
>   process_one_work+0x133/0x2f0
>   ? mod_delayed_work_on+0x90/0x90
>   worker_thread+0x2ec/0x400
>   ? mod_delayed_work_on+0x90/0x90
>   kthread+0xe2/0x110
>   ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20
>   ret_from_fork+0x2d/0x50
>   ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20
>   ret_from_fork_asm+0x11/0x20
> 
> The top stacktrace is showing nvme_timeout() called to handle nvme
> command timeout. timeout handler is trying to disable the controller and
> as a first step, it needs to blk_mq_quiesce_tagset() to tell blk-mq not
> to call queue callback handlers. The thread is stuck waiting for
> set->tag_list_lock as it tires to walk the queues in set->tag_list.
> 
> The lock is held by the second thread in the bottom stack which is
> waiting for one of queues to be frozen. The queue usage counter will
> drop to zero after nvme_timeout() finishes, and this will not happen
> because the thread will wait for this mutex forever.
> 
> Convert set->tag_list_lock mutex to set->tag_list_rwsem rwsemaphore to
> avoid the deadlock. Update blk_mq_[un]quiesce_tagset() to take the
> semaphore for read since this is enough to guarantee no queues will be
> added or removed. Update blk_mq_{add,del}_queue_tag_set() to take the
> semaphore for write while updating set->tag_list and downgrade it to
> read while freezing the queues. It should be safe to update set->flags
> and hctx->flags while holding the semaphore for read since the queues
> are already frozen.
> 
> Fixes: 98d81f0df70c ("nvme: use blk_mq_[un]quiesce_tagset")
> Signed-off-by: Mohamed Khalfella <mkhalfella@purestorage.com>

Reviewed-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>


Thanks,
Ming