From: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
To: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org,
hch@lst.de, axboe@kernel.dk, martin.petersen@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [bug report] raid0 array mkfs.xfs hang
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 15:00:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ea82050f-f5a4-457d-8603-2f279237c8be@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4d31268f-310b-4220-88a2-e191c3932a82@oracle.com>
This looks to resolve the issue:
------>8------
Author: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
Date: Wed Aug 14 12:15:26 2024 +0100
block: Read max write zeroes once for __blkdev_issue_write_zeroes()
As reported in [0], we may get a hang when formatting a XFS FS on a
RAID0 disk.
Commit 73a768d5f955 ("block: factor out a blk_write_zeroes_limit
helper") changed __blkdev_issue_write_zeroes() to read the max write
zeroes value in a loop. This is not safe in case max write zeroes
changes, which it seems to do. For case of [0], the value goes to 0, and
we get an infinite loop.
Lift the limit reading out of the loop.
[0]
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/4d31268f-310b-4220-88a2-e191c3932a82@oracle.com/T/#t
Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
diff --git a/block/blk-lib.c b/block/blk-lib.c
index 9f735efa6c94..f65fb083c25d 100644
--- a/block/blk-lib.c
+++ b/block/blk-lib.c
@@ -113,11 +113,11 @@ static sector_t bio_write_zeroes_limit(struct
block_device *bdev)
static void __blkdev_issue_write_zeroes(struct block_device *bdev,
sector_t sector, sector_t nr_sects, gfp_t gfp_mask,
- struct bio **biop, unsigned flags)
+ struct bio **biop, unsigned flags, sector_t limit)
{
+
while (nr_sects) {
- unsigned int len = min_t(sector_t, nr_sects,
- bio_write_zeroes_limit(bdev));
+ unsigned int len = min_t(sector_t, nr_sects, limit);
struct bio *bio;
if ((flags & BLKDEV_ZERO_KILLABLE) &&
@@ -144,9 +144,10 @@ static int blkdev_issue_write_zeroes(struct
block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
struct bio *bio = NULL;
struct blk_plug plug;
int ret = 0;
+ sector_t limit = bio_write_zeroes_limit(bdev);
blk_start_plug(&plug);
- __blkdev_issue_write_zeroes(bdev, sector, nr_sects, gfp, &bio,
flags);
+ __blkdev_issue_write_zeroes(bdev, sector, nr_sects, gfp, &bio,
flags, limit);
if (bio) {
if ((flags & BLKDEV_ZERO_KILLABLE) &&
fatal_signal_pending(current)) {
@@ -165,7 +166,7 @@ static int blkdev_issue_write_zeroes(struct
block_device *bdev, sector_t sector,
* on an I/O error, in which case we'll turn any error into
* "not supported" here.
*/
- if (ret && !bdev_write_zeroes_sectors(bdev))
+ if (ret && !limit)
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
return ret;
}
@@ -265,12 +266,14 @@ int __blkdev_issue_zeroout(struct block_device
*bdev, sector_t sector,
sector_t nr_sects, gfp_t gfp_mask, struct bio **biop,
unsigned flags)
{
+
+ sector_t limit = bio_write_zeroes_limit(bdev);
if (bdev_read_only(bdev))
return -EPERM;
- if (bdev_write_zeroes_sectors(bdev)) {
+ if (limit) {
__blkdev_issue_write_zeroes(bdev, sector, nr_sects,
- gfp_mask, biop, flags);
+ gfp_mask, biop, flags, limit);
} else {
if (flags & BLKDEV_ZERO_NOFALLBACK)
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
ubuntu@jgarry-instance-20240809-1141-3:~/linux$
-----8<------
The value max write zeroes value is changing in raid0_map_submit_bio()
-> mddev_check_write_zeroes()
>
> xfsprogs 5.3.0 does not have this issue for v6.11-rc. xfsprogs 5.15.0
> and later does.
>
> For xfsprogs on my modestly recent baseline, mkfs.xfs is getting stuck
> in prepare_devices() -> libxfs_log_clear() -> libxfs_device_zero() ->
> libxfs_device_zero() -> platform_zero_range() ->
> fallocate(start=2198746472448 len=2136997888), and this never returns
> AFAICS. With v6.10 kernel, that fallocate with same args returns promptly.
>
> That code path is just not in xfsprogs 5.3.0
>
>> After upgrading from v6.10 to v6.11-rc1/2, I am seeing a hang when
>> attempting to format a software raid0 array:
>>
>> $sudo mkfs.xfs -f -K /dev/md127
>> meta-data=/dev/md127 isize=512 agcount=32,
>> agsize=33550272 blks
>> = sectsz=4096 attr=2, projid32bit=1
>> = crc=1 finobt=1, sparse=1,
>> rmapbt=0
>> = reflink=1 bigtime=0 inobtcount=0
>> data = bsize=4096 blocks=1073608704,
>> imaxpct=5
>> = sunit=64 swidth=256 blks
>> naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0, ftype=1
>> log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=521728, version=2
>> = sectsz=4096 sunit=1 blks, lazy-count=1
>> realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0
>> ^C^C^C^C
>>
>>
>> I'm using mkfs.xfs -K to avoid discard-related lock-up issues which I
>> have seen reported when googling - maybe this is just another similar
>> issue.
>>
>> The kernel lockup callstack is at the bottom.
>>
>> Some array details:
>> $sudo mdadm --detail /dev/md127
>> /dev/md127:
>> Version : 1.2
>> Creation Time : Thu Aug 8 13:23:59 2024
>> Raid Level : raid0
>> Array Size : 4294438912 (4.00 TiB 4.40 TB)
>> Raid Devices : 4
>> Total Devices : 4
>> Persistence : Superblock is persistent
>>
>> Update Time : Thu Aug 8 13:23:59 2024
>> State : clean
>> Active Devices : 4
>> Working Devices : 4
>> Failed Devices : 0
>> Spare Devices : 0
>>
>> Layout : -unknown-
>> Chunk Size : 256K
>>
>> Consistency Policy : none
>>
>> Name : 0
>> UUID : 3490e53f:36d0131b:7c7eb913:0fd62deb
>> Events : 0
>>
>> Number Major Minor RaidDevice State
>> 0 8 16 0 active sync /dev/sdb
>> 1 8 64 1 active sync /dev/sde
>> 2 8 48 2 active sync /dev/sdd
>> 3 8 80 3 active sync /dev/sdf
>>
>>
>>
>> $lsblk
>> NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT
>> sda 8:0 0 46.6G 0 disk
>> ├─sda1 8:1 0 100M 0 part /boot/efi
>> ├─sda2 8:2 0 1G 0 part /boot
>> └─sda3 8:3 0 45.5G 0 part
>> ├─ocivolume-root 252:0 0 35.5G 0 lvm /
>> └─ocivolume-oled 252:1 0 10G 0 lvm /var/oled
>> sdb 8:16 0 1T 0 disk
>> └─md127 9:127 0 4T 0 raid0
>> sdc 8:32 0 1T 0 disk
>> sdd 8:48 0 1T 0 disk
>> └─md127 9:127 0 4T 0 raid0
>> sde 8:64 0 1T 0 disk
>> └─md127 9:127 0 4T 0 raid0
>> sdf 8:80 0 1T 0 disk
>> └─md127 9:127 0 4T 0 raid0
>>
>> I'll start to look deeper, but any suggestions on the problem are
>> welcome.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> John
>>
>>
>> ort_iscsi aesni_intel crypto_simd cryptd
>> [ 396.110305] CPU: 0 UID: 0 PID: 321 Comm: kworker/0:1H Not tainted
>> 6.11.0-rc1-g8400291e289e #11
>> [ 396.111020] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996),
>> BIOS 1.5.1 06/16/2021
>> [ 396.111695] Workqueue: kblockd blk_mq_run_work_fn
>> [ 396.112114] RIP: 0010:bio_endio+0xa0/0x1b0
>> [ 396.112455] Code: 96 9a 02 00 48 8b 43 08 48 85 c0 74 09 0f b7 53
>> 14 f6 c2 80 75 3b 48 8b 43 38 48 3d e0 a3 3c b2 75 44 0f b6 43 19 48
>> 8b 6b 40 <84> c0 74 09 80 7d 19 00 75 03 88 45 19 48 89 df 48 89 eb e8
>> 58 fe
>> [ 396.113962] RSP: 0018:ffffa3fec19fbc38 EFLAGS: 00000246
>> [ 396.114392] RAX: 0000000000000001 RBX: ffff97a284c3e600 RCX:
>> 00000000002a0001
>> [ 396.114974] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffffcfb0f1130f80 RDI:
>> 0000000000020000
>> [ 396.115546] RBP: ffff97a284c41bc0 R08: ffff97a284c3e3c0 R09:
>> 00000000002a0001
>> [ 396.116185] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12:
>> ffff9798216ed000
>> [ 396.116766] R13: ffff97975bf071c0 R14: ffff979751be4798 R15:
>> 0000000000009000
>> [ 396.117393] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff97b5ff600000(0000)
>> knlGS:0000000000000000
>> [ 396.118122] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>> [ 396.118709] CR2: 00007f2477a45f68 CR3: 0000000107998005 CR4:
>> 0000000000770ef0
>> [ 396.119398] PKRU: 55555554
>> [ 396.119627] Call Trace:
>> [ 396.119905] <IRQ>
>> [ 396.120078] ? watchdog_timer_fn+0x1e2/0x260
>> [ 396.120457] ? __pfx_watchdog_timer_fn+0x10/0x10
>> [ 396.120900] ? __hrtimer_run_queues+0x10c/0x270
>> [ 396.121276] ? hrtimer_interrupt+0x109/0x250
>> [ 396.121663] ? __sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x55/0x120
>> [ 396.122197] ? sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6c/0x90
>> [ 396.122640] </IRQ>
>> [ 396.122815] <TASK>
>> [ 396.123009] ? asm_sysvec_apic_timer_interrupt+0x1a/0x20
>> [ 396.123473] ? bio_endio+0xa0/0x1b0
>> [ 396.123794] ? bio_endio+0xb8/0x1b0
>> [ 396.124082] md_end_clone_io+0x42/0xa0
>> [ 396.124406] blk_update_request+0x128/0x490
>> [ 396.124745] ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0xfbef5
>> [ 396.125554] ? scsi_dec_host_busy+0x14/0x90
>> [ 396.126290] blk_mq_end_request+0x22/0x2e0
>> [ 396.126965] blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list+0x2b6/0x730
>> [ 396.127660] ? srso_alias_return_thunk+0x5/0xfbef5
>> [ 396.128386] __blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests+0x442/0x640
>> [ 396.129152] blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests+0x2a/0x60
>> [ 396.130005] blk_mq_run_work_fn+0x67/0x80
>> [ 396.130697] process_scheduled_works+0xa6/0x3e0
>> [ 396.131413] worker_thread+0x117/0x260
>> [ 396.132051] ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10
>> [ 396.132697] kthread+0xd2/0x100
>> [ 396.133288] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
>> [ 396.133977] ret_from_fork+0x34/0x40
>> [ 396.134613] ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
>> [ 396.135207] ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30
>> [ 396.135863] </TASK>
>>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-08-14 14:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-08-08 17:12 [bug report] raid0 array mkfs.xfs hang John Garry
2024-08-12 14:50 ` John Garry
2024-08-14 14:00 ` John Garry [this message]
2024-08-14 14:46 ` Keith Busch
2024-08-14 14:52 ` Martin K. Petersen
2024-08-14 17:25 ` John Garry
2024-08-15 5:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-08-15 5:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-08-15 6:19 ` John Garry
2024-08-15 6:21 ` Christoph Hellwig
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=ea82050f-f5a4-457d-8603-2f279237c8be@oracle.com \
--to=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.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