From: Douglas Gilbert <dgilbert@interlog.com>
To: Tony Battersby <tonyb@cybernetics.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <JBottomley@parallels.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] [SCSI] sg: fix EWOULDBLOCK errors with scsi-mq
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 17:11:51 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54E119A7.1010704@interlog.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54DE3022.7070803@cybernetics.com>
On 15-02-13 12:10 PM, Tony Battersby wrote:
> With scsi-mq enabled, userspace programs can get unexpected EWOULDBLOCK
> (a.k.a. EAGAIN) errors when submitting commands to the SCSI generic
> driver. Fix by calling blk_get_request() with GFP_KERNEL instead of
> GFP_ATOMIC.
>
> Note: to avoid introducing a potential deadlock, this patch should be
> applied after the patch titled "sg: fix unkillable I/O wait deadlock
> with scsi-mq".
>
> Cc: Douglas Gilbert <dgilbert@interlog.com>
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # 3.17+
> Signed-off-by: Tony Battersby <tonyb@cybernetics.com>
Acked-by: Douglas Gilbert <dgilbert@interlog.com>
Tested-by: Douglas Gilbert <dgilbert@interlog.com>
> For inclusion in kernel 3.20.
>
> The difference in behavior is due to bt_get() in block/blk-mq-tag.c
> checking for __GFP_WAIT.
>
> The bsg driver already calls blk_get_request() with GFP_KERNEL, so there
> is no need for a change there.
>
> --- linux-3.19.0/drivers/scsi/sg.c.orig 2015-02-13 11:04:40.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-3.19.0/drivers/scsi/sg.c 2015-02-13 11:05:14.000000000 -0500
> @@ -1695,7 +1695,22 @@ sg_start_req(Sg_request *srp, unsigned c
> return -ENOMEM;
> }
>
> + /*
> + * NOTE
> + *
> + * With scsi-mq enabled, there are a fixed number of preallocated
> + * requests equal in number to shost->can_queue. If all of the
> + * preallocated requests are already in use, then using GFP_ATOMIC with
> + * blk_get_request() will return -EWOULDBLOCK, whereas using GFP_KERNEL
> + * will cause blk_get_request() to sleep until an active command
> + * completes, freeing up a request. Neither option is ideal, but
> + * GFP_KERNEL is the better choice to prevent userspace from getting an
> + * unexpected EWOULDBLOCK.
> + *
> + * With scsi-mq disabled, blk_get_request() with GFP_KERNEL usually
> + * does not sleep except under memory pressure.
> + */
> + rq = blk_get_request(q, rw, GFP_KERNEL);
> - rq = blk_get_request(q, rw, GFP_ATOMIC);
> if (IS_ERR(rq)) {
> kfree(long_cmdp);
> return PTR_ERR(rq);
>
> --
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-15 22:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-13 17:10 [PATCH v2 2/2] [SCSI] sg: fix EWOULDBLOCK errors with scsi-mq Tony Battersby
2015-02-15 22:11 ` Douglas Gilbert [this message]
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=54E119A7.1010704@interlog.com \
--to=dgilbert@interlog.com \
--cc=JBottomley@parallels.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tonyb@cybernetics.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