public inbox for linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@redhat.com, hch@lst.de,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [for-4.14 RFC PATCH 1/2] dm rq: avoid deadlock if dm-mq is	stacked on old .request_fn device(s)
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 09:22:50 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170714072250.GC17046@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170713211217.52361-2-snitzer@redhat.com>

The problem here is the following:

blk_finish_request must always be called with the queue lock held,
it even has an assert.

Without blk-mq used by dm-rq, dm uses the block softirq to execute the
completion, which means we always have a different execution context and
can take the queue lock again without issuesi.

With blk-mq used by dm-rq, the the dm .complete handler that is the rough
equivalent of the softirq handler is called either directly if were are
on the same CPU, or using a IPI (hardirq) if not.  If this handler gets
called from a legacy request function it will be called with the
queue_lock held, but if it's called from a blk-mq driver or actually
uses the IPI no lock will be held.

When I did my blk-mq only for dm-mpath WIP patch my solution to that
was that I removed the ->complete handler entirely and just ran the
whole dm completion from the original hardirq context.  With that change
I know that for blk-mq we'll never hold the queue_lock (and the blk-mq
request free path doesn't care), and for legacy we always hold it,
so __blk_put_request can always be used.

  reply	other threads:[~2017-07-14  7:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-07-13 21:12 [for-4.14 RFC PATCH 0/2] dm rq: eliminate historic blk-mq and .request_fn queue stacking restrictions Mike Snitzer
2017-07-13 21:12 ` [for-4.14 RFC PATCH 1/2] dm rq: avoid deadlock if dm-mq is stacked on old .request_fn device(s) Mike Snitzer
2017-07-14  7:22   ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2017-07-14 14:19     ` Mike Snitzer
2017-07-14 17:17       ` Ewan D. Milne
2017-07-14 21:15         ` Mike Snitzer
2017-07-13 21:12 ` [for-4.14 RFC PATCH 2/2] dm rq: eliminate historic blk-mq and .request_fn queue stacking restrictions Mike Snitzer
2017-07-14  7:12 ` [for-4.14 RFC PATCH 0/2] " Christoph Hellwig
2017-07-14 14:02   ` Mike Snitzer
2017-07-15  8:44     ` 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=20170714072250.GC17046@lst.de \
    --to=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=snitzer@redhat.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