From: Nilay Shroff <nilay@linux.ibm.com>
To: linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Cc: hch@lst.de, ming.lei@redhat.com, dlemoal@kernel.org,
axboe@kernel.dk, gjoyce@ibm.com
Subject: [PATCHv2 0/6] block: fix lock order and remove redundant locking
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:58:53 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250218082908.265283-1-nilay@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
Hi,
After we modeled the freeze & enter queue as lock for supporting lockdep
under commit f1be1788a32e ("block: model freeze & enter queue as lock
for supporting lockdep"), we received numerous lockdep splats. And one
of those splats[1] reported the potential deadlock due to incorrect lock
ordering issue between q->sysfs-lock and q->q_usage_counter. So some of
the patches in this series are aimed to cut the dependency between q->
sysfs-lock and q->q_usage_counter.
This patchset contains six patches in the series.
The 1st patch removes the q->sysfs_lock for all sysfs attributes which
don't need it. We identified all sysfs attributes which don't need any
locking and all such attributes have been now grouped in queue_attr_show
/queue_attr_store under entry->show_nolock/entry->store_nolock methods.
The 2nd patch helps acquire q->limits_lock instead of q->sysfs_lock while
reading a set of attributes whose write method is protected with atomic
limit update APIs or updates to these attributes could occur under atomic
limit update APIs such as queue_limit_start_update() and queue_limits_
commit_update(). So all such attributes have been now grouped in queue_
attr_show under entry->show_limit method.
Subsequent patches address remaining attributes individually and group
them in queue_attr_show/queue_attr_store under entry->show/entry->store
method which require some form of locking other than q->limits_lock or
q->sysfs_lock.
The 3rd patch introduce a new dedicated lock for elevator switch/update
and thus eliminates the dependecy of sched update on q->sysfs_lock.
The 4th patch protects sysfs attribute nr_requests using q->elevator_lock
instead of q->sysfs_lock as the update to q->nr_requests now happen under
q->elevator_lock.
Similarly, the 5th patch protects sysfs attribute wbt_lat_usec using
q->elevator_lock instead of q->sysfs_lock as the update to wbt state and
latency now happen under q->elevator_lock.
The 6th patch protects read_ahead_kb using q->limits_lock instead of
q->sysfs_lock as update to bdi->ra_pages could happen using atomic limit
update APIs. Ideally we should have grouped this attribute in queue_attr_
show/queue_attr_store under entry->show_limit/entry->store_limit method.
However we don't use atomic update helper APIs queue_limits_start_update()
and queue_limits_commit_update() here bacause blk_apply_bdi_limits() which
is invoked from queue_limits_commit_update() can overwrite the bdi->ra_
pages value which user actaully wants to store using this attribute. The
blk_apply_bdi_limits() sets value of bdi->ra_pages based on the optimal
I/O size(io_opt). So we choose instead to update this attribute value
outside of using atomic limit update APIs.
Please note that above changes were unit tested against blktests and
quick xfstests with lockdep enabled.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/67637e70.050a0220.3157ee.000c.GAE@google.com/
Nilay Shroff (6):
blk-sysfs: remove q->sysfs_lock for attributes which don't need it
blk-sysfs: acquire q->limits_lock while reading attributes
block: Introduce a dedicated lock for protecting queue elevator
updates
blk-sysfs: protect nr_requests update using q->elevator_lock
blk-sysfs: protect wbt_lat_usec using q->elevator_lock
blk-sysfs: protect read_ahead_kb using q->limits_lock
---
Changes from v1:
- Audit all sysfs attributes in block layer and find attributes which
don't need any locking as well as attributes which needs some form of
locking; then remove locking from queue_attr_store/queue_attr_show and
move it into the attributes that still need it in some form, followed
by replacing it with the more suitable locks (hch)
- Use dedicated lock for elevator switch/update (Ming Lei)
- Re-arrange patchset to first segregate and group together all
attributes which don't need locking followed by grouping attributes
which need some form of locking.
Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250205144506.663819-1-nilay@linux.ibm.com/
---
block/blk-core.c | 1 +
block/blk-mq.c | 12 +-
block/blk-settings.c | 2 +-
block/blk-sysfs.c | 324 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
block/elevator.c | 18 ++-
block/genhd.c | 9 +-
include/linux/blkdev.h | 1 +
7 files changed, 254 insertions(+), 113 deletions(-)
--
2.47.1
next reply other threads:[~2025-02-18 8:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-18 8:28 Nilay Shroff [this message]
2025-02-18 8:28 ` [PATCHv2 1/6] blk-sysfs: remove q->sysfs_lock for attributes which don't need it Nilay Shroff
2025-02-18 8:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-02-18 11:26 ` Nilay Shroff
2025-02-21 14:02 ` Nilay Shroff
2025-02-22 12:44 ` Ming Lei
2025-02-24 13:09 ` Nilay Shroff
2025-02-24 14:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-02-26 12:09 ` Nilay Shroff
2025-02-24 8:41 ` Hannes Reinecke
2025-02-24 13:12 ` Nilay Shroff
2025-02-18 12:10 ` Ming Lei
2025-02-18 13:11 ` Nilay Shroff
2025-02-18 13:45 ` Ming Lei
2025-02-18 16:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-02-19 3:24 ` Ming Lei
2025-02-19 5:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-02-19 8:34 ` Nilay Shroff
2025-02-19 8:56 ` Nilay Shroff
2025-02-19 9:20 ` Ming Lei
2025-02-18 8:28 ` [PATCHv2 2/6] blk-sysfs: acquire q->limits_lock while reading attributes Nilay Shroff
2025-02-18 8:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-02-18 8:28 ` [PATCHv2 3/6] block: Introduce a dedicated lock for protecting queue elevator updates Nilay Shroff
2025-02-18 9:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-02-18 11:14 ` Nilay Shroff
2025-02-18 16:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-02-19 8:41 ` Nilay Shroff
2025-02-18 8:28 ` [PATCHv2 4/6] blk-sysfs: protect nr_requests update using q->elevator_lock Nilay Shroff
2025-02-18 8:28 ` [PATCHv2 5/6] blk-sysfs: protect wbt_lat_usec " Nilay Shroff
2025-02-18 8:28 ` [PATCHv2 6/6] blk-sysfs: protect read_ahead_kb using q->limits_lock Nilay Shroff
2025-02-18 9:12 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-02-18 11:27 ` Nilay Shroff
2025-02-18 9:21 ` [PATCHv2 0/6] block: fix lock order and remove redundant locking Christoph Hellwig
2025-02-18 12:09 ` Nilay Shroff
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=20250218082908.265283-1-nilay@linux.ibm.com \
--to=nilay@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dlemoal@kernel.org \
--cc=gjoyce@ibm.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).