Re: new patchset to eliminate DM's use of BIOSET_NEED_RESCUER

Mike Snitzer
2017-11-22T02:32:03Z

On Tue, Nov 21 2017 at 8:21pm -0500,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 21 2017 at 4:23pm -0500,
> > Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This is not correct:
> > >
> > > 2206 static void dm_wq_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > > 2207 {
> > > 2208 struct mapped_device *md = container_of(work, struct mapped_device, work);
> > > 2209 struct bio *bio;
> > > 2210 int srcu_idx;
> > > 2211 struct dm_table *map;
> > > 2212
> > > 2213 if (!bio_list_empty(&md->rescued)) {
> > > 2214 struct bio_list list;
> > > 2215 spin_lock_irq(&md->deferred_lock);
> > > 2216 list = md->rescued;
> > > 2217 bio_list_init(&md->rescued);
> > > 2218 spin_unlock_irq(&md->deferred_lock);
> > > 2219 while ((bio = bio_list_pop(&list)))
> > > 2220 generic_make_request(bio);
> > > 2221 }
> > > 2222
> > > 2223 map = dm_get_live_table(md, &srcu_idx);
> > > 2224
> > > 2225 while (!test_bit(DMF_BLOCK_IO_FOR_SUSPEND, &md->flags)) {
> > > 2226 spin_lock_irq(&md->deferred_lock);
> > > 2227 bio = bio_list_pop(&md->deferred);
> > > 2228 spin_unlock_irq(&md->deferred_lock);
> > > 2229
> > > 2230 if (!bio)
> > > 2231 break;
> > > 2232
> > > 2233 if (dm_request_based(md))
> > > 2234 generic_make_request(bio);
> > > 2235 else
> > > 2236 __split_and_process_bio(md, map, bio);
> > > 2237 }
> > > 2238
> > > 2239 dm_put_live_table(md, srcu_idx);
> > > 2240 }
> > >
> > > You can see that if we are in dm_wq_work in __split_and_process_bio, we
> > > will not process md->rescued list.
> >
> > Can you elaborate further? We cannot be "in dm_wq_work in
> > __split_and_process_bio" simultaneously. Do you mean as a side-effect
> > of scheduling away from __split_and_process_bio?
> >
> > The more detail you can share the better.
>
> Suppose this scenario:
>
> * dm_wq_work calls __split_and_process_bio

Right, I later realized this was the call chain you were referring to.
Not sure how I missed it the first time around.

> * __split_and_process_bio eventually reaches the function snapshot_map
> * snapshot_map attempts to take the snapshot lock
>
> * the snapshot lock could be released only if some bios submitted by the
> snapshot driver to the underlying device complete
> * the bios submitted to the underlying device were already offloaded by
> some other task and they are waiting on the list md->rescued
> * the bios waiting on md->rescued are not processed, because dm_wq_work is
> blocked in snapshot_map (called from __split_and_process_bio)

SO you're saying the case that Neil doesn't think should happen:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/11/21/658
...can happen.

> > > The processing of md->rescued is also wrong - bios for different devices
> > > must be offloaded to different helper threads, so that processing a bio
> > > for a lower device doesn't depend on processing a bio for a higher device.
> > > If you offload all the bios on current->bio_list to the same thread, the
> > > bios still depend on each other and the deadlock will still happen.
> >
> > Commit 325738403 ("dm: revise 'rescue' strategy for bio-based bioset
> > allocations") speaks to this with:
> >
> > "Note that only current->bio_list[0] is offloaded. current->bio_list[1]
> > contains bios that were scheduled *before* the current one started, so
> > they must have been submitted from higher up the stack, and we cannot be
> > waiting for them here (thanks to the "dm: ensure bio submission follows
> > a depth-first tree walk" commit). Also, we now rescue *all* bios on the
> > list as there is nothing to be gained by being more selective."
>
> I think you are right - if we only offload current->bio_list[0], then
> mixing of dependent bios on the offloaded list won't happen.
>
> > And again: this patchset passes your dm-snapshot deadlock test. Is
> > that test somehow lacking?
>
> With your patchset, the deadlock would happen only if bios are queued on
> &md->deferred - and that happens only in case of resume or if we are
> processing REQ_PREFLUSH with non-zero data size.
>
> So, the simple test that I wrote doesn't trigger it, but a more complex
> test involving REQ_PREFLUSH could.

Makes sense. But I need to think further about _why_ bios submitted to
the snapshot driver's underlying device would end up on md->rescued
(like you suggested above). Again, Neil thinks it not possible. Neil
said:
"they will not be recursive calls, so nothing will be added to
current->bio_list[0] and nothing will be moved to md->rescued. Each
generic_make_request() will completely submit the request in the lower
level devel."

Mike