Re: rq pointer in tags->rqs[] is not cleared in time and make SCSI error handle can not be triggered

[luojiaxing <luojiaxing@huawei.com>]

On 2021/8/31 16:37, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 10:27:28AM +0800, luojiaxing wrote:
>> Hi, Ming
>>
>>
>> Sorry to reply so late, This issue occur in low probability,
>>
>> so it take some time to confirm.
>>
>>
>> On 2021/8/26 15:29, Ming Lei wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 11:00:34AM +0800, luojiaxing wrote:
>>>> Dear all:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I meet some problem when test hisi_sas driver(under SCSI) based on 5.14-rc4
>>>> kernel, it's found that error handle can not be triggered after
>>>>
>>>> abnormal IO occur in some test with a low probability. For example,
>>>> circularly run disk hardreset or disable all local phy of expander when
>>>> running fio.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We add some tracepoint and print to see what happen, and we got the
>>>> following information:
>>>>
>>>> (1).print rq and rq_state at bt_tags_iter() to confirm how many IOs is
>>>> running now.
>>>>
>>>> <4>[  897.431182] bt_tags_iter: rqs[2808]: 0xffff202007bd3000; rq_state: 1
>>>> <4>[  897.437514] bt_tags_iter: rqs[3185]: 0xffff0020c5261e00; rq_state: 1
>>>> <4>[  897.443841] bt_tags_iter: rqs[3612]: 0xffff00212f242a00; rq_state: 1
>>>> <4>[  897.450167] bt_tags_iter: rqs[2808]: 0xffff00211d208100; rq_state: 1
>>>> <4>[  897.456492] bt_tags_iter: rqs[2921]: 0xffff00211d208100; rq_state: 1
>>>> <4>[  897.462818] bt_tags_iter: rqs[1214]: 0xffff002151d21b00; rq_state: 1
>>>> <4>[  897.469143] bt_tags_iter: rqs[2648]: 0xffff0020c4bfa200; rq_state: 1
>>>>
>>>> The preceding information show that rq with tag[2808] is found in different
>>>> hctx by bt_tags_iter() and with different pointer saved in tags->rqs[].
>>>>
>>>> And tag[2808] own the same pointer value saved in rqs[] with tag[2921]. It's
>>>> wrong because our driver share tag between all hctx, so it's not possible
>>> What is your io scheduler? I guess it is deadline,
>>
>> yes
>>
>>
>>>    and can you observe
>>> such issue by switching to none?
>>
>> Yes, it happen when switched to none
>>
>>
>>> The tricky thing is that one request dumped may be re-allocated to other tag
>>> after returning from bt_tags_iter().
>>>
>>>> to allocate one tag to different rq.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (2).check tracepoints(temporarily add) in blk_mq_get_driver_tag() and
>>>> blk_mq_put_tag() to see where this tag is come from.
>>>>
>>>>       Line 1322969:            <...>-20189   [013] .... 893.427707:
>>>> blk_mq_get_driver_tag: rqs[2808]: 0xffff00211d208100
>>>>       Line 1322997:  irq/1161-hisi_s-7602    [012] d..1 893.427814:
>>>> blk_mq_put_tag_in_free_request: rqs[2808]: 0xffff00211d208100
>>>>       Line 1331257:            <...>-20189   [013] .... 893.462663:
>>>> blk_mq_get_driver_tag: rqs[2860]: 0xffff00211d208100
>>>>       Line 1331289:  irq/1161-hisi_s-7602    [012] d..1 893.462785:
>>>> blk_mq_put_tag_in_free_request: rqs[2860]: 0xffff00211d208100
>>>>       Line 1338493:            <...>-20189   [013] .... 893.493519:
>>>> blk_mq_get_driver_tag: rqs[2921]: 0xffff00211d208100
>>>>
>>>> As we can see this rq is allocated to tag[2808] once, and finially come to
>>>> tag[2921], but rqs[2808] still save the pointer.
>>> Yeah, we know this kind of handling, but not see it as issue.
>>>
>>>> There will be no problem until we encounter a rare situation.
>>>>
>>>> For example, tag[2808] is reassigned to another hctx for execution, then
>>>> some IO meet some error.
>>> I guess the race is triggered when 2808 is just assigned, meantime
>>> ->rqs[] isn't updated.
>>
>> As we shared tag between hctx, so if 2808 was assinged to other hctx.
>>
>> So previous hctx's rqs will not updated。
> request->state is updated before releasing the tag, and we always grab
> request refcount which prevents the tag from being re-used.
>
> scsi_host_busy() counts the transient host state, and it is fine to see
> same request reused from different tags, but when ->fn() is calling, the
> request's state is started, as you observed in the log 1.
>
>>
>>>> Before waking up the error handle thread, SCSI compares the values of
>>>> scsi_host_busy() and shost->host_failed.
>>>>
>>>> If the values are different, SCSI waits for the completion of some I/Os.
>>>> According to the print provided by (1), the return value of scsi_host_busy()
>>>> should be 7 for tag [2808] is calculated twice,
>>>>
>>>> and the value of shost->host_failed is 6. As a result, this two values are
>>>> never equal, and error handle cannot be triggered.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A temporary workaround is provided and can solve the problem as:
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.c b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
>>>> index 2a37731..e3dc773 100644
>>>> --- a/block/blk-mq-tag.c
>>>> +++ b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
>>>> @@ -190,6 +190,7 @@ void blk_mq_put_tag(struct blk_mq_tags *tags, struct
>>>> blk_mq_ctx *ctx,
>>>>                   BUG_ON(tag >= tags->nr_reserved_tags);
>>>>                   sbitmap_queue_clear(tags->breserved_tags, tag, ctx->cpu);
>>>>           }
>>>> +       tags->rqs[tag] = NULL;
>>>>    }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since we did not encounter this problem in some previous kernel versions, we
>>>> wondered if the community already knew about the problem or could provide
>>>> some solutions.
>>> Can you try the following patch?
>>
>> I tested it. it can fix the bug.
>>
>>
>> However, if there is still a problem in the following scenario? For example,
>> driver tag 0 is assigned
>>
>> to rq0 in hctx0, and reclaimed after rq completed. Next time driver tag 0 is
>> still assigned to rq0 but
>>
>> in hctx1. So at this time,  bt_tags_iter will still got two rqs.
> Looks I missed that you were talking about shared sbitmap, maybe you
> need the following change? Otherwise you may get duplicated counting
> since all tags points to single same&shared tags.


I test the following change, it can not fix the issue.

BTW, even if my HW queue shared sbitmap, but each queue didn't shared 
blk_mq_tags. so the following change look strange.


I wonder why not clear the rq pointer saved in tags->rqs[], I don't see 
any benefit to keep these pointer after tag is put.


Thanks

Jiaxing


>
> diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.c b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
> index 86f87346232a..36fc696e83d9 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq-tag.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
> @@ -380,8 +380,10 @@ void blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter(struct blk_mq_tag_set *tagset,
>   		busy_tag_iter_fn *fn, void *priv)
>   {
>   	int i;
> +	int queues = blk_mq_is_sbitmap_shared(tagset->flags) ? 1:
> +		tagset->nr_hw_queues;
>   
> -	for (i = 0; i < tagset->nr_hw_queues; i++) {
> +	for (i = 0; i < queues; i++) {
>   		if (tagset->tags && tagset->tags[i])
>   			__blk_mq_all_tag_iter(tagset->tags[i], fn, priv,
>   					      BT_TAG_ITER_STARTED);
>
>
> Thanks,
> Ming
>
>
> .
>