Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] blk-mq: fix blk_mq_quiesce_queue

Ming Lei
2017-05-28T10:44:10Z

On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 09:46:45PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Sat, 2017-05-27 at 22:21 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > It is required that no dispatch can happen any more once
> > blk_mq_quiesce_queue() returns, and we don't have such requirement
> > on APIs of stopping queue.
> >
> > But blk_mq_quiesce_queue() still may not block/drain dispatch in the
> > following cases:
> >
> > - direct issue or BLK_MQ_S_START_ON_RUN
> > - in theory, new RCU read-side critical sections may begin while
> > synchronize_rcu() was waiting, and end after synchronize_rcu()
> > returns, during the period dispatch still may happen
>
> Hello Ming,

Hello Bart,

>
> I think the title and the description of this patch are wrong. Since
> the current queue quiescing mechanism works fine for drivers that do
> not stop and restart a queue (e.g. SCSI and dm-core), please change the

I have provided the issues in current quiesce mechanism, now I post it again:

But blk_mq_quiesce_queue() still may not block/drain dispatch in the
following cases:

- direct issue or BLK_MQ_S_START_ON_RUN
- in theory, new RCU read-side critical sections may begin while
synchronize_rcu() was waiting, and end after synchronize_rcu()
returns, during the period dispatch still may happen

Not like stopping queue, any dispatching has to be drained/blocked
when the synchronize_rcu() returns, otherwise double free or
use-after-free can be triggered, which has been observed on NVMe
already.

> title and description to reflect that the purpose of this patch is
> to allow drivers that use the quiesce mechanism to restart a queue
> without unquiescing it.

First it is really a fix, and then a improvement, so could you tell me
where is wrong with the title and the description?

>
> > @@ -209,6 +217,9 @@ void blk_mq_wake_waiters(struct request_queue *q)
> > * the queue are notified as well.
> > */
> > wake_up_all(&q->mq_freeze_wq);
> > +
> > + /* Forcibly unquiesce the queue to avoid having stuck requests */
> > + blk_mq_unquiesce_queue(q);
> > }
>
> Should the block layer unquiesce a queue if a block driver hasn't
> done that before queue removal starts or should the block driver
> itself do that?

Some drivers might quiesce a queue and not unquiesce it, such as
NVMe.

OK, I will consider to fix drivers first.

> The block layer doesn't restart stopped queues from
> inside blk_set_queue_dying() so why should it unquiesce a quiesced
> queue?

If the quiesced queue isn't unquiesced, it may cause I/O hang, since
any I/O in sw queue/scheduler queue can't be completed at all.

OK, will fix driver in next post.

Actually the queue has to be started after blk_set_queue_dying(),
otherwise it can cause I/O hang too, and there can be lots of
writeback I/O in the following del_gendisk(). We have done it
in NVMe already, see nvme_kill_queues().

Maybe in future, we should consider to do that all in block layer.

>
> > bool blk_mq_can_queue(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> > @@ -1108,13 +1119,15 @@ static void __blk_mq_run_hw_queue(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> >
> > if (!(hctx->flags & BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING)) {
> > rcu_read_lock();
> > - blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests(hctx);
> > + if (!blk_queue_quiesced(hctx->queue))
> > + blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests(hctx);
> > rcu_read_unlock();
> > } else {
> > might_sleep();
> >
> > srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&hctx->queue_rq_srcu);
> > - blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests(hctx);
> > + if (!blk_queue_quiesced(hctx->queue))
> > + blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests(hctx);
> > srcu_read_unlock(&hctx->queue_rq_srcu, srcu_idx);
> > }
> > }
>
> Sorry but I don't like these changes. Why have the blk_queue_quiesced()
> calls be added at other code locations than the blk_mq_hctx_stopped() calls?
> This will make the block layer unnecessary hard to maintain. Please consider
> to change the blk_mq_hctx_stopped(hctx) calls in blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests()
> and *blk_mq_*run_hw_queue*() into blk_mq_hctx_stopped(hctx) || blk_queue_quiesced(q).

One benefit is that we make it explicit that the flag has to be checked
inside the RCU read-side critical sections. If you put it somewhere,
someone may put it out of read-side critical sections in future.

Thanks,
Ming