Re: [PATCH] block: Fix blk_sync_queue() to properly stop timeout timer

[Mohamed Khalfella <mkhalfella@purestorage.com>]

On 2025-05-29 15:33:47 -0700, Mohamed Khalfella wrote:
> On 2025-05-29 16:13:23 -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> > On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 03:49:28PM -0600, Mohamed Khalfella wrote:
> > > nvme-fc initiator hit hung_task with stacktrace above while handling
> > > request timeout call. The work thread is waiting for itself to finish
> > > which is never going to happen. From the stacktrace the nvme controller
> > > was in NVME_CTRL_CONNECTING state when nvme_fc_timeout() was called.
> > > We do not expect to get IO timeout call in NVME_CTRL_CONNECTING state
> > > because blk_sync_queue() must have been called on this queue before
> > > switching from NVME_CTRL_RESETTING to NVME_CTRL_CONNECTING.
> > > 
> > > It turned out that blk_sync_queue() did not stop q->timeout_work from
> > > running as expected. nvme_fc_timeout() returned BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER
> > > causing q->timeout to be rearmed after it was canceled earlier.
> > > q->timeout queued q->timeout_work after the controller switched to
> > > NVME_CTRL_CONNECTING state causing deadlock above.
> > > 
> > > Add QUEUE_FLAG_NOTIMEOUT queue flag to tell q->timeout not to queue
> > > q->timeout_work while queue is being synced. Update blk_sync_queue() to
> > > cancel q->timeout_work first and then cancel q->timeout.
> > 
> > I feel like this is a nvme-fc problem that doesn't need the block layer
> > to handle. Just don't sync the queues within the timeout workqueue
> > context.
> 
> Agreed on nvme-fc should not sync queues within timeout work, and I am
> testing a patch to fix nvme-fc. At the same time blk_sync_queue() should
> provide a guarantee that q->timeout_work will not run after the function
> returns, no?

Following up on this patch. I think the issue with blk_sync_queue()
needs to be addressed. If adding a queue flag is not the preferred way
to do it, please let me know what do you suggest and I will make the
code changes.