Linux block layer
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Tahsin Erdogan <tahsin@google.com>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blkcg: allocate struct blkcg_gq outside request queue spinlock
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:53:29 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170328215329.GF28157@htj.duckdns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5b9ab59c-4121-d49a-1dc5-bd419f3ac94f@kernel.dk>

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 04:04:32PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 03/24/2017 03:56 PM, Tahsin Erdogan wrote:
> > blkg_conf_prep() currently calls blkg_lookup_create() while holding
> > request queue spinlock. This means allocating memory for struct
> > blkcg_gq has to be made non-blocking. This causes occasional -ENOMEM
> > failures in call paths like below:
> > 
> >   pcpu_alloc+0x68f/0x710
> >   __alloc_percpu_gfp+0xd/0x10
> >   __percpu_counter_init+0x55/0xc0
> >   cfq_pd_alloc+0x3b2/0x4e0
> >   blkg_alloc+0x187/0x230
> >   blkg_create+0x489/0x670
> >   blkg_lookup_create+0x9a/0x230
> >   blkg_conf_prep+0x1fb/0x240
> >   __cfqg_set_weight_device.isra.105+0x5c/0x180
> >   cfq_set_weight_on_dfl+0x69/0xc0
> >   cgroup_file_write+0x39/0x1c0
> >   kernfs_fop_write+0x13f/0x1d0
> >   __vfs_write+0x23/0x120
> >   vfs_write+0xc2/0x1f0
> >   SyS_write+0x44/0xb0
> >   entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x18/0xad
> > 
> > In the code path above, percpu allocator cannot call vmalloc() due to
> > queue spinlock.
> > 
> > A failure in this call path gives grief to tools which are trying to
> > configure io weights. We see occasional failures happen shortly after
> > reboots even when system is not under any memory pressure. Machines
> > with a lot of cpus are more vulnerable to this condition.
> > 
> > Do struct blkcg_gq allocations outside the queue spinlock to allow
> > blocking during memory allocations.
> 
> This looks much simpler/cleaner to me, compared to v5. Tejun, what do
> you think?

So, this patch in itself looks better but now we end up with two
separate mechanisms to handle non-atomic allocations.  This drop lock
/ alloc / relock / check invariants in the main path and preallocation
logic used in the init path.  Right now, both proposed implementations
aren't that satisfactory.  Personally, I'd prefer superficial ugliness
to structural duplications, but, ideally, we shouldn't have to make
this choice.  idk, it's a bug fix.  We can always clean things up
later.

Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

  reply	other threads:[~2017-03-28 21:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-02-28  2:49 [PATCH] blkcg: allocate struct blkcg_gq outside request queue spinlock Tahsin Erdogan
2017-02-28 22:47 ` Tejun Heo
2017-02-28 23:51   ` Tahsin Erdogan
2017-03-01 16:55     ` Tejun Heo
2017-03-01 23:43       ` [PATCH v2] " Tahsin Erdogan
2017-03-01 23:49         ` Tahsin Erdogan
2017-03-02 19:32         ` Tejun Heo
2017-03-02 22:33           ` Tahsin Erdogan
2017-03-03 19:23             ` Tejun Heo
2017-03-04  1:40               ` [PATCH v3] " Tahsin Erdogan
2017-03-04 19:23                 ` Tejun Heo
2017-03-05 14:12                   ` [PATCH v4] " Tahsin Erdogan
2017-03-05 14:24                     ` Tahsin Erdogan
2017-03-06 20:03                     ` Tejun Heo
2017-03-09  8:05                       ` [PATCH v5] " Tahsin Erdogan
2017-03-09 18:27                         ` Tejun Heo
2017-03-11 22:42                         ` Jens Axboe
2017-03-11 22:52                           ` Jens Axboe
2017-03-12  4:35                             ` Tahsin Erdogan
2017-03-13 14:32                               ` Jens Axboe
2017-03-13 16:17                                 ` Tahsin Erdogan
2017-03-24 21:56                                   ` [PATCH] " Tahsin Erdogan
2017-03-24 22:04                                     ` Jens Axboe
2017-03-28 21:53                                       ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2017-03-28 21:59                         ` [PATCH v5] " Jens Axboe
2017-03-28 22:01                           ` Tahsin Erdogan
2017-03-09  5:25                 ` [lkp-robot] [blkcg] ad63af3cb7: BUG:sleeping_function_called_from_invalid_context_at_mm/slab.h kernel test robot
2017-03-09  7:59                   ` Tahsin Erdogan
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2017-03-26 10:54 [PATCH] blkcg: allocate struct blkcg_gq outside request queue spinlock Julia Lawall
2017-03-27 18:29 ` Tahsin Erdogan

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=20170328215329.GF28157@htj.duckdns.org \
    --to=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    --cc=tahsin@google.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox