From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Tao Cui" <cui.tao@linux.dev>
Cc: bpf@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mkoutny@suse.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v12 1/4] blk-iocost: add BPF struct_ops cost model support
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2026 13:51:13 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-195400@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261103132613.1952975-2-cui.tao@linux.dev>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] blk-iocost: lock order inversion between queue freeze and rq_qos_mutex
- [Medium] blk-iocost: stale autop timestamps across model attach/detach
--
commit 145ca796c6aa0e9492a94bdce49377cc07f92750
Author: Tao Cui <cuitao@kylinos.cn>
blk-iocost: add BPF struct_ops cost model support
This commit adds BPF struct_ops support (iocost_model_ops) to blk-iocost so
a BPF program can calculate per-bio vtime costs and provide page transfer
coefficients for a target block device. It also extends io.cost.model to
switch between the linear and attached BPF cost models while suspending
ctrl=auto profile stepping when a BPF model is active.
> diff --git a/block/blk-iocost.c b/block/blk-iocost.c
> index a81488c755cab..0f9c695b685af 100644
> --- a/block/blk-iocost.c
> +++ b/block/blk-iocost.c
[ ... ]
> @@ -806,7 +844,7 @@ static int ioc_autop_idx(struct ioc *ioc, struct gendisk *disk)
> return AUTOP_SSD_DFL;
>
> /* if user is overriding anything, maintain what was there */
> - if (ioc->user_qos_params || ioc->user_cost_model)
> + if (ioc->user_qos_params || ioc->user_cost_model || ioc_model(ioc))
> return idx;
>
> /* step up/down based on the vrate */
[ ... ]
> @@ -2908,10 +2968,33 @@ static void ioc_rqos_queue_depth_changed(struct rq_qos *rqos)
> spin_unlock_irq(&ioc->lock);
> }
>
> +/* Called by .unreg and by device removal, whichever is first. */
> +static void ioc_detach_model(struct ioc *ioc)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_BLK_CGROUP_IOCOST_BPF
> + const struct iocost_model_ops *ops = ioc->attached;
> +
> + lockdep_assert_held(&ioc->rqos.disk->queue->rq_qos_mutex);
> +
> + if (!ops)
> + return;
> +
> + spin_lock_irq(&ioc->lock);
> + rcu_assign_pointer(ioc->model, NULL);
> + ioc->attached = NULL;
> + ioc->attached_link = NULL;
> + spin_unlock_irq(&ioc->lock);
[Severity: Medium]
When ctrl=auto is active under the builtin linear model and vrate_pct crosses
too_fast_vrate_pct or too_slow_vrate_pct in ioc_autop_idx(), the current
timestamp is recorded in ioc->autop_too_fast_at or ioc->autop_too_slow_at,
requiring AUTOP_CYCLE_NSEC (10 seconds) of sustained condition before stepping
ioc->autop_idx.
When a BPF model is attached in ioc_bpf_reg() and later detached in
ioc_detach_model(), ioc->model is updated without calling
ioc_refresh_params(ioc, true) or clearing ioc->autop_too_fast_at and
ioc->autop_too_slow_at, unlike ioc_cost_model_write() and ioc_qos_write():
block/blk-iocost.c:ioc_refresh_params_disk() {
...
idx = ioc_autop_idx(ioc, disk);
p = &autop[idx];
if (idx == ioc->autop_idx && !force)
return false;
...
ioc->autop_idx = idx;
ioc->autop_too_fast_at = 0;
ioc->autop_too_slow_at = 0;
...
}
While the BPF model is active, ioc_autop_idx() returns idx early at the
ioc_model(ioc) check before reaching the timestamp update and reset logic, and
ioc_refresh_params_disk(ioc, false, disk) returns false early because
idx == ioc->autop_idx, leaving any pre-attachment timestamp in
ioc->autop_too_fast_at or ioc->autop_too_slow_at intact.
Once the BPF model is detached via ioc_bpf_unreg() -> ioc_detach_model(), on
the first timer tick (ioc_timer_fn() -> ioc_refresh_params(ioc, false) ->
ioc_autop_idx()), if vrate_pct is past the threshold,
now_ns - ioc->autop_too_fast_at (or autop_too_slow_at) includes the entire
time the BPF model was attached.
Could this cause ioc_autop_idx() to immediately exceed AUTOP_CYCLE_NSEC and
step ioc->autop_idx (resetting vtime_rate) on the first tick after detach
instead of waiting for a full AUTOP_CYCLE_NSEC cycle? Should ioc_bpf_reg() and
ioc_detach_model() reset the autop timestamps or call
ioc_refresh_params(ioc, true) under ioc->lock?
[ ... ]
> @@ -3559,7 +3644,11 @@ static ssize_t ioc_cost_model_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of, char *input,
> continue;
> case COST_MODEL:
> match_strlcpy(buf, &args[0], sizeof(buf));
> - if (strcmp(buf, "linear"))
> + if (!strcmp(buf, "linear"))
> + model = NULL;
> + else if (!strcmp(buf, "bpf") && ioc->attached)
> + model = ioc->attached;
> + else
> goto unlock;
> continue;
> }
> @@ -3579,6 +3668,7 @@ static ssize_t ioc_cost_model_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of, char *input,
> } else {
> ioc->user_cost_model = false;
> }
> + rcu_assign_pointer(ioc->model, model);
> ioc_refresh_params(ioc, true);
>
> ret = 0;
> @@ -3626,6 +3716,166 @@ static struct blkcg_policy blkcg_policy_iocost = {
> .pd_stat_fn = ioc_pd_stat,
> };
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_BLK_CGROUP_IOCOST_BPF
> +static int ioc_bpf_reg(void *kdata, struct bpf_link *link)
> +{
> + struct iocost_model_ops *ops = kdata;
> + struct block_device *bdev;
> + struct request_queue *q;
> + unsigned int memflags;
> + struct ioc *ioc;
> + int ret;
> +
> + bdev = blkdev_get_no_open(new_decode_dev(ops->dev), false);
> + if (!bdev)
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> + q = bdev_get_queue(bdev);
> + if (bdev_is_partition(bdev) || !queue_is_mq(q)) {
> + blkdev_put_no_open(bdev);
> + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> + }
> +
> + /* the order of ioc_qos_write() */
> + memflags = blk_mq_freeze_queue(q);
> + mutex_lock(&q->rq_qos_mutex);
[Severity: High]
In ioc_bpf_reg(), blk_mq_freeze_queue(q) is called before acquiring
q->rq_qos_mutex, which establishes the lock order:
q->io_lockdep_map -> q->q_lockdep_map -> q->rq_qos_mutex
However, in ioc_cost_model_write() (which is used to toggle between
model=linear and model=bpf), blkg_conf_open_bdev(&ctx) acquires
q->rq_qos_mutex first, and unlike ioc_qos_write(), ioc_cost_model_write() does
not drop q->rq_qos_mutex before calling blk_iocost_init() and
blk_mq_freeze_queue(q):
block/blk-iocost.c:ioc_cost_model_write() {
blkg_conf_init(&ctx, input);
ret = blkg_conf_open_bdev(&ctx); // locks q->rq_qos_mutex
if (ret)
return ret;
...
ioc = q_to_ioc(q);
if (!ioc) {
ret = blk_iocost_init(ctx.bdev->bd_disk);
if (ret)
goto close_bdev;
ioc = q_to_ioc(q);
}
memflags = blk_mq_freeze_queue(q); // locks q->io_lockdep_map -> q->q_lockdep_map
...
}
This establishes the opposite lock order in ioc_cost_model_write():
q->rq_qos_mutex -> q->io_lockdep_map -> q->q_lockdep_map
In addition, paths that hold q->rq_qos_mutex without freezing the queue first
(such as ioc_cost_model_write() -> blk_iocost_init() and ioc_weight_write() ->
blkg_conf_prep()) perform GFP_KERNEL allocations under q->rq_qos_mutex without
memalloc_noio_save(), which can enter fs_reclaim and wait on a frozen queue.
Can attaching a BPF model via ioc_bpf_reg() and writing to io.cost.model via
ioc_cost_model_write() trigger a lockdep circular locking dependency splat or
an ABBA deadlock between queue freeze and q->rq_qos_mutex? Should
ioc_cost_model_write() release and re-acquire q->rq_qos_mutex around
blk_mq_freeze_queue(q) the same way ioc_qos_write() does?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261103132613.1952975-1-cui.tao@linux.dev?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-11-03 13:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-11-03 13:26 [RFC PATCH v12 0/4] blk-iocost: BPF struct_ops cost model Tao Cui
2026-11-03 13:26 ` [RFC PATCH v12 1/4] blk-iocost: add BPF struct_ops cost model support Tao Cui
2026-11-03 13:51 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-11-04 3:10 ` Tao Cui
2026-11-03 16:51 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2026-11-04 3:08 ` Tao Cui
2026-11-03 13:26 ` [RFC PATCH v12 2/4] blk-iocost: add iocost_ioc_tick tracepoint for per-period device summary Tao Cui
2026-11-03 14:07 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-11-04 3:12 ` Tao Cui
2026-11-03 13:26 ` [RFC PATCH v12 3/4] selftests/bpf: add iocost cost model test Tao Cui
2026-11-03 14:07 ` bot+bpf-ci
2026-11-04 3:13 ` Tao Cui
2026-11-03 14:16 ` sashiko-bot
2026-11-04 3:15 ` Tao Cui
2026-11-03 13:26 ` [RFC PATCH v12 4/4] docs: cgroup-v2: document the iocost BPF cost model attachment Tao Cui
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=sashiko-outbox-195400@kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=bpf@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=cui.tao@linux.dev \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=mkoutny@suse.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=tj@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox