From: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: fix a bug of sleeping in atomic context
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:08:30 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151120230829.GB8096@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <564F9103.7060301@fb.com>
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 02:30:43PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/20/2015 06:13 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 05:49:37PM -0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> >>while xfstesting, this bug[1] is spotted by both btrfs/061 and btrfs/063,
> >>so those sub-stripe writes are gatherred into plug callback list and
> >>hopefully we can have a full stripe writes.
> >>
> >>However, while processing these plugged callbacks, it's within an atomic
> >>context which is provided by blk_sq_make_request() because of a get_cpu()
> >>in blk_mq_get_ctx().
> >>
> >>This changes to always use btrfs_rmw_helper to complete the pending writes.
> >>
> >
> >Thanks Liu, but MD raid has the same troubles, we're not atomic in our unplugs.
> >
> >Jens?
>
> Yeah, blk-mq does have preemption disabled when it flushes, for the single
> queue setup. That's a bug. Attached is an untested patch that should fix it,
> can you try it?
>
Although it runs into a warning one time of 50 tries, that was not atomic warning but another racy issue.
WARNING: CPU: 2 PID: 8531 at fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1162 __btrfs_cow_block+0x431/0x610 [btrfs]()
So overall the patch is good.
> I'll rework this to be a proper patch, not convinced we want to add the new
> request before flush, that might destroy merging opportunities. I'll unify
> the mq/sq parts.
That's true, xfstests didn't notice any performance difference but that cannot prove anything.
I'll test the new patch when you send it out.
Thanks,
-liubo
>
> --
> Jens Axboe
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> index 3ae09de62f19..0325dcec8c74 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> @@ -1380,12 +1391,15 @@ static blk_qc_t blk_sq_make_request(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio)
> blk_mq_bio_to_request(rq, bio);
> if (!request_count)
> trace_block_plug(q);
> - else if (request_count >= BLK_MAX_REQUEST_COUNT) {
> +
> + list_add_tail(&rq->queuelist, &plug->mq_list);
> + blk_mq_put_ctx(data.ctx);
> +
> + if (request_count + 1 >= BLK_MAX_REQUEST_COUNT) {
> blk_flush_plug_list(plug, false);
> trace_block_plug(q);
> }
> - list_add_tail(&rq->queuelist, &plug->mq_list);
> - blk_mq_put_ctx(data.ctx);
> +
> return cookie;
> }
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-20 23:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-20 1:49 [PATCH] Btrfs: fix a bug of sleeping in atomic context Liu Bo
2015-11-20 13:13 ` Chris Mason
2015-11-20 17:57 ` Liu Bo
2015-11-20 20:06 ` Liu Bo
2015-11-20 20:09 ` Chris Mason
2015-11-20 21:30 ` Jens Axboe
2015-11-20 23:08 ` Liu Bo [this message]
2015-11-21 2:26 ` Jens Axboe
2015-11-21 3:14 ` Liu Bo
2015-11-21 3:29 ` Jens Axboe
2015-11-21 6:05 ` Liu Bo
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=20151120230829.GB8096@localhost.localdomain \
--to=bo.li.liu@oracle.com \
--cc=axboe@fb.com \
--cc=clm@fb.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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