From: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>
To: axboe@kernel.dk, hch@lst.de, jack@suse.cz
Cc: andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com, qiulaibin@huawei.com,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/7] blk-mq: sync wake_batch update and users number change
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2023 04:11:10 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230209201116.579809-2-shikemeng@huaweicloud.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230209201116.579809-1-shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>
Commit 180dccb0dba4f ("blk-mq: fix tag_get wait task can't be awakened")
added recalculation of wake_batch when active_queues changes to avoid io
hung.
Function blk_mq_tag_idle and blk_mq_tag_busy can be called concurrently,
then wake_batch maybe updated with old users number. For example, if
tag alloctions for two shared queue happen concurrently, blk_mq_tag_busy
maybe executed as following:
thread1 thread2
atomic_inc_return
atomic_inc_return
blk_mq_update_wake_batch
blk_mq_update_wake_batch
1.Thread1 adds active_queues from zero to one.
2.Thread2 adds active_queues from one to two.
3.Thread2 calculates wake_batch with latest active_queues number two.
4.Thread1 calculates wake_batch with stale active_queues number one.
Then wake_batch is inconsistent with actual active_queues. If wake_batch
is calculated with active_queues number smaller than actual active_queues
number, wake_batch will be greater than it supposed to be and cause io
hung.
Sync wake_batch update and users number change to keep wake_batch
consistent with active_queues to fix this.
Fixes: 180dccb0dba4 ("blk-mq: fix tag_get wait task can't be awakened")
Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>
---
block/blk-mq-tag.c | 11 +++++++++--
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.c b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
index 9eb968e14d31..1d3135acfc98 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq-tag.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
@@ -39,7 +39,9 @@ static void blk_mq_update_wake_batch(struct blk_mq_tags *tags,
*/
void __blk_mq_tag_busy(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
{
+ struct blk_mq_tags *tags = hctx->tags;
unsigned int users;
+ unsigned long flags;
if (blk_mq_is_shared_tags(hctx->flags)) {
struct request_queue *q = hctx->queue;
@@ -53,9 +55,11 @@ void __blk_mq_tag_busy(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
set_bit(BLK_MQ_S_TAG_ACTIVE, &hctx->state);
}
- users = atomic_inc_return(&hctx->tags->active_queues);
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&tags->lock, flags);
+ users = atomic_inc_return(&tags->active_queues);
- blk_mq_update_wake_batch(hctx->tags, users);
+ blk_mq_update_wake_batch(tags, users);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tags->lock, flags);
}
/*
@@ -76,6 +80,7 @@ void __blk_mq_tag_idle(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
{
struct blk_mq_tags *tags = hctx->tags;
unsigned int users;
+ unsigned long flags;
if (blk_mq_is_shared_tags(hctx->flags)) {
struct request_queue *q = hctx->queue;
@@ -88,9 +93,11 @@ void __blk_mq_tag_idle(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
return;
}
+ spin_lock_irqsave(&tags->lock, flags);
users = atomic_dec_return(&tags->active_queues);
blk_mq_update_wake_batch(tags, users);
+ spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tags->lock, flags);
blk_mq_tag_wakeup_all(tags, false);
}
--
2.30.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-09 12:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-09 20:11 [PATCH 0/7] A few bugfix and cleanup patches to blk-mq Kemeng Shi
2023-02-09 20:11 ` Kemeng Shi [this message]
2023-02-09 13:43 ` [PATCH 1/7] blk-mq: sync wake_batch update and users number change Jan Kara
2023-02-09 20:11 ` [PATCH 2/7] blk-mq: count changed hctx as active in blk_mq_get_tag Kemeng Shi
2023-02-09 13:55 ` Jan Kara
2023-02-09 20:11 ` [PATCH 3/7] blk-mq: remove wake_batch recalculation for reserved tags Kemeng Shi
2023-02-09 20:11 ` [PATCH 4/7] blk-mq: remove unnecessary bit clear in __blk_mq_alloc_requests_batch Kemeng Shi
2023-02-09 20:11 ` [PATCH 5/7] blk-mq: remove unnecessary "set->queue_depth == 0" check in blk_mq_alloc_set_map_and_rqs Kemeng Shi
2023-02-09 20:11 ` [PATCH 6/7] blk-mq: Remove unnecessary hctx check in function blk_mq_alloc_and_init_hctx Kemeng Shi
2023-02-09 20:11 ` [PATCH 7/7] blk-mq: remove stale comment of function called for iterated request Kemeng Shi
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=20230209201116.579809-2-shikemeng@huaweicloud.com \
--to=shikemeng@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=qiulaibin@huawei.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