From: Nilay Shroff <nilay@linux.ibm.com>
To: linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Cc: hch@lst.de, ming.lei@redhat.com, dlemoal@kernel.org,
hare@suse.de, axboe@kernel.dk, gjoyce@ibm.com
Subject: [PATCHv3 0/7] block: fix lock order and remove redundant locking
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2025 19:00:51 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250224133102.1240146-1-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 seven patches in the series.
The 1st 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 ->show_limit() method.
The 2nd patch is preparation to further simplify and group sysfs attributes
in subsequent patches. So in this patch we move acquire/release of q->sysfs
_lock as well as queue freeze/unfreeze under each attributes' respective
->show()/->store() method.
The 3rd 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 removed use of q->sysfs_lock for these attributes.
Subsequent patches address remaining attributes individually which require
some form of locking other than q->limits_lock or q->sysfs_lock.
The 4th patch introduce a new dedicated lock for elevator switch/update
and thus eliminates the dependency of sched update on q->sysfs_lock.
The 5th 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 6th 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 7th patch protects read_ahead_kb using q->limits_lock instead of
q->sysfs_lock as update to ->ra_pages is protected by ->limits_lock.
The ->ra_pages is usually calculated from the queue limits by queue_
limits_commit_update.
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/
---
Changes from v2:
- Add a prep patch (second patch in the series) to first move q->sysfs_
lock and queue freeze from queue_attr_show/queue_attr_store to show/
store method of the respective attribute; then in subsequent patches
we remove q->sysfs_lock from attributes that don't require any from of
locking or replace q->sysfs_lock with appropriate lock for attributes
that require some form of locking; this way we can get away with using
->show_nolock()/->store_nolock() methods (hch)
- Few other misc updates to commit message and code comments (hch)
- Rearrange the patchset to improve organization and clarity. Start with
a patch that groups all attributes requiring protection under ->limits_
lock. Follow this with a preparatory patch, then introduce a patch that
consolidates attributes that do not require any form of locking.
Finally, address the remaining attributes individually in subsequent
patches, which require some form of locking other than q->limits_lock
or q->sysfs_lock.
Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250218082908.265283-1-nilay@linux.ibm.com/
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/
---
Nilay Shroff (7):
block: acquire q->limits_lock while reading sysfs attributes
block: move q->sysfs_lock and queue-freeze under show/store method
block: remove q->sysfs_lock for attributes which don't need it
block: Introduce a dedicated lock for protecting queue elevator
updates
block: protect nr_requests update using q->elevator_lock
block: protect wbt_lat_usec using q->elevator_lock
block: protect read_ahead_kb using q->limits_lock
block/blk-core.c | 1 +
block/blk-iocost.c | 2 +
block/blk-mq.c | 15 +-
block/blk-settings.c | 2 +-
block/blk-sysfs.c | 309 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
block/elevator.c | 43 ++++--
block/elevator.h | 2 -
block/genhd.c | 9 +-
include/linux/blkdev.h | 5 +
9 files changed, 251 insertions(+), 137 deletions(-)
--
2.47.1
next reply other threads:[~2025-02-24 13:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-24 13:30 Nilay Shroff [this message]
2025-02-24 13:30 ` [PATCHv3 1/7] block: acquire q->limits_lock while reading sysfs attributes Nilay Shroff
2025-02-25 7:38 ` Hannes Reinecke
2025-02-24 13:30 ` [PATCHv3 2/7] block: move q->sysfs_lock and queue-freeze under show/store method Nilay Shroff
2025-02-24 16:31 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-02-25 7:41 ` Hannes Reinecke
2025-02-24 13:30 ` [PATCHv3 3/7] block: remove q->sysfs_lock for attributes which don't need it Nilay Shroff
2025-02-25 7:46 ` Hannes Reinecke
2025-02-24 13:30 ` [PATCHv3 4/7] block: Introduce a dedicated lock for protecting queue elevator updates Nilay Shroff
2025-02-24 16:33 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-02-25 13:28 ` Nilay Shroff
2025-02-25 7:49 ` Hannes Reinecke
2025-02-24 13:30 ` [PATCHv3 5/7] block: protect nr_requests update using q->elevator_lock Nilay Shroff
2025-02-25 7:50 ` Hannes Reinecke
2025-02-24 13:30 ` [PATCHv3 6/7] block: protect wbt_lat_usec " Nilay Shroff
2025-02-25 7:53 ` Hannes Reinecke
2025-02-25 10:05 ` Nilay Shroff
2025-02-24 13:30 ` [PATCHv3 7/7] block: protect read_ahead_kb using q->limits_lock Nilay Shroff
2025-02-25 7:58 ` Hannes Reinecke
2025-02-25 10:18 ` Nilay Shroff
2025-02-25 11:43 ` Hannes Reinecke
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=20250224133102.1240146-1-nilay@linux.ibm.com \
--to=nilay@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dlemoal@kernel.org \
--cc=gjoyce@ibm.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--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