From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1107C6A332 for ; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 12:21:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="fjcTxays" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1705062116; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=z6Tww1zFMixcbjFa6rUn6YQ5EOmwalSBsUCRomP3oMs=; b=fjcTxaysvswMKONM3lmi/UFqVQWQNroY9D1vg8l4gSfws27SHUo1jjv38noYM6ErThYN6N 2nVaCqSSddDV3YGqphjiH9nhnNbkuTY+EFOxxWzAdFo9oekVTXTabO/xgFCxsUgdu3thk5 x8RB9wZQb5GVMpYkvOL71EPu8RxGZr4= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-88-JYdThnBoO2iPNxxIqHjVmQ-1; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 07:21:50 -0500 X-MC-Unique: JYdThnBoO2iPNxxIqHjVmQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.9]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 703D71C07546; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 12:21:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fedora (unknown [10.72.116.130]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2235492BC6; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 12:21:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 20:21:42 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Jan Kara Cc: Kemeng Shi , Jens Axboe , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, David Jeffery , Gabriel Krisman Bertazi , Changhui Zhong Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: fix IO hang from sbitmap wakeup race Message-ID: References: <20240111155448.4097173-1-ming.lei@redhat.com> <89d7ce62-9539-ba26-09fa-81875a69ce3f@huaweicloud.com> <20240112102004.uceqjn3a2hbmpck4@quack3> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240112102004.uceqjn3a2hbmpck4@quack3> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.9 On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 11:20:04AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > On Fri 12-01-24 17:27:48, Kemeng Shi wrote: > > > > > > on 1/11/2024 11:54 PM, Ming Lei wrote: > > > In blk_mq_mark_tag_wait(), __add_wait_queue() may be re-ordered > > > with the following blk_mq_get_driver_tag() in case of getting driver > > > tag failure. > > > > > > Then in __sbitmap_queue_wake_up(), waitqueue_active() may not observe > > > the added waiter in blk_mq_mark_tag_wait() and wake up nothing, meantime > > > blk_mq_mark_tag_wait() can't get driver tag successfully. > > > > > > This issue can be reproduced by running the following test in loop, and > > > fio hang can be observed in < 30min when running it on my test VM > > > in laptop. > > > > > > modprobe -r scsi_debug > > > modprobe scsi_debug delay=0 dev_size_mb=4096 max_queue=1 host_max_queue=1 submit_queues=4 > > > dev=`ls -d /sys/bus/pseudo/drivers/scsi_debug/adapter*/host*/target*/*/block/* | head -1 | xargs basename` > > > fio --filename=/dev/"$dev" --direct=1 --rw=randrw --bs=4k --iodepth=1 \ > > > --runtime=100 --numjobs=40 --time_based --name=test \ > > > --ioengine=libaio > > > > > > Fix the issue by adding one explicit barrier in blk_mq_mark_tag_wait(), which > > > is just fine in case of running out of tag. > > > > > > Apply the same pattern in blk_mq_get_tag() which should have same risk. > > > > > > Reported-by: Changhui Zhong > > > Signed-off-by: Ming Lei > > > --- > > > BTW, Changhui is planning to upstream the test case to blktests. > > > > > > block/blk-mq-tag.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > block/blk-mq.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.c b/block/blk-mq-tag.c > > > index cc57e2dd9a0b..29f77cae8eb2 100644 > > > --- a/block/blk-mq-tag.c > > > +++ b/block/blk-mq-tag.c > > > @@ -179,6 +179,25 @@ unsigned int blk_mq_get_tag(struct blk_mq_alloc_data *data) > > > > > > sbitmap_prepare_to_wait(bt, ws, &wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); > > > > > > + /* > > > + * Add one explicit barrier since __blk_mq_get_tag() may not > > > + * imply barrier in case of failure. > > > + * > > > + * Order adding us to wait queue and the following allocating > > > + * tag in __blk_mq_get_tag(). > > > + * > > > + * The pair is the one implied in sbitmap_queue_wake_up() > > > + * which orders clearing sbitmap tag bits and > > > + * waitqueue_active() in __sbitmap_queue_wake_up(), since > > > + * waitqueue_active() is lockless > > > + * > > > + * Otherwise, re-order of adding wait queue and getting tag > > > + * may cause __sbitmap_queue_wake_up() to wake up nothing > > > + * because the waitqueue_active() may not observe us in wait > > > + * queue. > > > + */ > > > + smp_mb(); > > > + > > Hi Ming, thanks for the fix. I'm not sure if we should explicitly imply > > a memory barrier here as prepare_to_wait variants normally imply a general > > memory barrier (see section "SLEEP AND WAKE-UP FUNCTIONS " in [1]). > > Wish this helps! > > Indeed, good spotting with the ordering bug Ming! I agree with Kemeng > though that set_current_state() called from sbitmap_prepare_to_wait() is > guaranteed to contain a memory barrier and thus reads from > __blk_mq_get_tag() are guaranteed to be ordered properly wrt addition into > the waitqueue. > > So only blk_mq_mark_tag_wait() is vulnerable to the problem you have > spotted AFAICT. Indeed, I will remove the one in blk_mq_get_tag() in V2. thanks, Ming