Re: [PATCH 00/13] block: assorted cleanup for bio splitting and cloning.

Mike Snitzer
2017-11-21T19:50:27Z

On Tue, Nov 21 2017 at 2:44pm -0500,
NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 21 2017, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 20 2017 at 8:35pm -0500,
> > Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Nov 20 2017 at 7:34pm -0500,
> >> NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, Nov 20 2017, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > But I've now queued this patch for once Linus gets back (reverts DM
> >> > > changes from commit 47e0fb461f):
> >> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=c9fdc42ba23eabd1ba7aef199fb9bb4b4fe5c545
> >> >
> >> > This patch does two things.
> >> > 1/ It removes the BIOSET_NEED_RESCUER flag from biosets created by dm.
> >> > This a functional changed over the code from before my patches.
> >> > Previously, all biosets were given a rescuer thread.
> >> > After my patch set, biosets only got a rescuer thread if
> >> > BIOSET_NEED_RESCUER was passed, and it was passed for all biosets.
> >> > I then removed it from places were I was certain it wasn't needed.
> >> > I didn't remove it from dm because I wasn't certain. Your
> >> > patch does remove the flags, which I think is incorrect - see below.
> >
> > Yeap, definitely was incorrect. I've dropped the patch.
> >
> >> > 2/ It changes flush_current_bio_list() so that bios allocated from a
> >> > bioset that does not have a rescue_workqueue are now added to
> >> > the ->rescue_list for their bio_set, and ->rescue_work is queued
> >> > on the NULL ->rescue_workqueue, resulting in a NULL dereference.
> >> > I suspect you don't want this.
> >
> > Yes, I see that now.
> >
> >> > The patch description claims that the patch fixes something, but it
> >> > isn't clear to me what it is meant to be fixing.
> >> >
> >> > It makes reference to dbba42d8 which is described as removing an unused
> >> > bioset process, though what it actually does is remove an used bioset
> >> > (and obvious the process disappears with it). My patch doesn't change
> >> > that behavior.
> >>
> >> Well I looked at this because Zdenek reported that with more recent
> >> kernels he is seeing the "bioset" per DM device again (whereas it was
> >> thought to be removed with mikulas' commit dbba42d8 -- but that commit
> >> removed "bioset" only in terms of q->bio_split.
> >
> > I think Zdenek triggered a false-positive that DM had magically sprouted
> > a new "bioset" rescue_workqueue. Reality is I cannot see how each
> > bio-based DM device can avoid having one. And the commit d67a5f4b59
> > ("dm: flush queued bios when process blocks to avoid deadlock") I
> > referenced earlier very much makes DM depend on it even more.
> >
> > So apologies for being so off-base (by looking to prematurely revert
> > DM's use of BIOSET_NEED_RESCUER, etc).
> >
> >> > Please see
> >> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2017-August/msg00310.html
> >
> > I'll very likely pick these up for 4.16 shortly. But hope to work
> > through complete removal of DM's use of BIOSET_NEED_RESCUER for 4.16 as
> > well.
> >
> >> > and
> >> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2017-August/msg00315.html
> >
> > This one [1] needs a lot of review and testing. Particularly against this
> > test case that Mikulas created to reproduce the snapshot deadlock (same
> > deadlock that motivated commit dbba42d8):
> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2017-January/msg00064.html
>
> Thanks for that link. I'll try to make time to experiment with the test
> code and confirm my proposed approach doesn't break it.
>
> >
> >> > for which the thread continues:
> >> > https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2017-September/msg00001.html
> >
> > Wish I could clone myself (or Kent, the world needs 2 Kents!) and pursue
> > this: https://www.redhat.com/archives/dm-devel/2014-May/msg00100.html
>
> In that email Kent mentions "punt off to a per request_queue workqueue".
>
> That "per request_queue workqueue" is what I'm trying to get rid of. I
> don't think this is a good direction.
>
> >
> > Short of that, how would you like to proceed?
>
> I'd like to confirm that my approach
> 1/ doesn't re-introduce a deadlock
> 2/ doesn't hurt performance
> and then merge it.
>
> Though to be honest, I don't recall exactly what "my approach" is.
> Your next email picks out two important patches which probably cover
> it. If/when I get to do the testing I'll let you know how it goes.

I _think_ I've done the heavy lifting of what you likely had in mind
( please see: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/567 )

Now what is left is another once-over from you to verify you're happy
with the code and patch headers, etc.

Mike