From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF3FDC83003 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:43:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99701206B8 for ; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:43:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="VKw4pqp6" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726765AbgD2Nnu (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2020 09:43:50 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.120]:51011 "EHLO us-smtp-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726599AbgD2Nnt (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2020 09:43:49 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1588167827; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Rcn9/AvAN/EsgNMm8MtuQD1T5du/+Rn8L3sXN6Mnriw=; b=VKw4pqp68zehkuxR3w30/nOy9a3n98w2kJjhF49XduqfoKo42NKcG4SNMI3X/VrcgfQ/CM NCFTNQv+GHj51t3jap/JTm3xc3+k8rLusv80LWXEC96wJjkF9g54T/h0E4sNPYnUBRtlon /5cW9TiY9ZTREd4jvloCUmJYXfIBk0I= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-110-o2sNc6h7NbyTyYBYT5YEQg-1; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 09:43:42 -0400 X-MC-Unique: o2sNc6h7NbyTyYBYT5YEQg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC0EA106B38C; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:43:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from T590 (ovpn-8-27.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.8.27]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEC671001281; Wed, 29 Apr 2020 13:43:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2020 21:43:27 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Will Deacon Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Christoph Hellwig , Jens Axboe , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, John Garry , Bart Van Assche , Hannes Reinecke , Thomas Gleixner , paulmck@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 07/11] blk-mq: stop to handle IO and drain IO before hctx becomes inactive Message-ID: <20200429134327.GC700644@T590> References: <20200425031723.GC477579@T590> <20200425083224.GA5634@lst.de> <20200425093437.GA495669@T590> <20200425095351.GC495669@T590> <20200425154832.GA16004@lst.de> <20200428155837.GA16910@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20200429021612.GD671522@T590> <20200429080728.GB29143@willie-the-truck> <20200429094616.GB700644@T590> <20200429122757.GA30247@willie-the-truck> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200429122757.GA30247@willie-the-truck> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 01:27:57PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 05:46:16PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 09:07:29AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 10:16:12AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 05:58:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 05:48:32PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > > > atomic_inc(&data.hctx->nr_active); > > > > > > } > > > > > > data.hctx->tags->rqs[rq->tag] = rq; > > > > > > > > > > > > /* > > > > > > + * Ensure updates to rq->tag and tags->rqs[] are seen by > > > > > > + * blk_mq_tags_inflight_rqs. This pairs with the smp_mb__after_atomic > > > > > > + * in blk_mq_hctx_notify_offline. This only matters in case a process > > > > > > + * gets migrated to another CPU that is not mapped to this hctx. > > > > > > */ > > > > > > + if (rq->mq_ctx->cpu != get_cpu()) > > > > > > smp_mb(); > > > > > > + put_cpu(); > > > > > > > > > > This looks exceedingly weird; how do you think you can get to another > > > > > CPU and not have an smp_mb() implied in the migration itself? Also, what > > > > > > > > What we need is one smp_mb() between the following two OPs: > > > > > > > > 1) > > > > rq->tag = rq->internal_tag; > > > > data.hctx->tags->rqs[rq->tag] = rq; > > > > > > > > 2) > > > > if (unlikely(test_bit(BLK_MQ_S_INACTIVE, &rq->mq_hctx->state))) > > > > > > > > And the pair of the above barrier is in blk_mq_hctx_notify_offline(). > > > > > > I'm struggling with this, so let me explain why. My understanding of the > > > original patch [1] and your explanation above is that you want *either* of > > > the following behaviours > > > > > > - __blk_mq_get_driver_tag() (i.e. (1) above) and test_bit(BLK_MQ_S_INACTIVE, ...) > > > run on the same CPU with barrier() between them, or > > > > > > - There is a migration and therefore an implied smp_mb() between them > > > > > > However, given that most CPUs can speculate loads (and therefore the > > > test_bit() operation), I don't understand how the "everything runs on the > > > same CPU" is safe if a barrier() is required. In other words, if the > > > barrier() is needed to prevent the compiler hoisting the load, then the CPU > > > can still cause problems. > > > > Do you think the speculate loads may return wrong value of > > BLK_MQ_S_INACTIVE bit in case of single CPU? BTW, writing the bit is > > done on the same CPU. If yes, this machine may not obey cache consistency, > > IMO. > > If the write is on the same CPU, then the read will of course return the > value written by that write, otherwise we'd have much bigger problems! OK, then it is nothing to with speculate loads. > > But then I'm confused, because you're saying that the write is done on the > same CPU, but previously you were saying that migration occuring before (1) > was problematic. Can you explain a bit more about that case, please? What > is running before (1) that is relevant here? Please see the following two code paths: [1] code path1: blk_mq_hctx_notify_offline(): set_bit(BLK_MQ_S_INACTIVE, &hctx->state); smp_mb() or smp_mb_after_atomic() blk_mq_hctx_drain_inflight_rqs(): blk_mq_tags_inflight_rqs() rq = hctx->tags->rqs[index] and READ rq->tag [2] code path2: blk_mq_get_driver_tag(): process might be migrated to other CPU here and chance is small, then the follow code will be run on CPU different with code path1 rq->tag = rq->internal_tag; hctx->tags->rqs[rq->tag] = rq; barrier() in case that code path2 is run on same CPU with code path1 OR smp_mb() in case that code path2 is run on different CPU with code path1 because of process migration test_bit(BLK_MQ_S_INACTIVE, &data.hctx->state) Thanks, Ming