From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To: Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com>
Cc: dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
"Jun'ichi Nomura" <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@suse.de>,
Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] dm: only initialize full request_queue for request-based device
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 08:01:30 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTinndXq8DkMBOUf5z8R_8lWRoRbDuOZ1LEmWeI21@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BF37DD5.9050409@ct.jp.nec.com>
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 1:57 AM, Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com> wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> On 05/18/2010 10:46 PM +0900, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>> Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com> wrote:
>>> On 05/18/2010 02:27 AM +0900, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>>>> Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com> wrote:
>>>>> As far as I understand, the current model of device-mapper is:
>>>>> - a table (precisely, a target) has various attributes,
>>>>> bio-based/request-based is one of such attributes
>>>>> - a table and its attributes are bound to the block device on resume
>>>>> If we want to fix a problem, I think we should either work based on
>>>>> this model or change the model.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your patch makes that loading table affects the block device, so you
>>>>> are changing the model.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you change the model, it should be done carefully.
>>>>> For example, the current model allows most of the table loading code
>>>>> to run without exclusive lock on the device because it doesn't affect
>>>>> the device itself. If you change this model, table loading needs to
>>>>> be serialized with appropriate locking.
>>>>
>>>> Nice catch, yes md->queue needs protection (see patch below).
>>>
>>> Not enough. (See drivers/md/dm-ioctl.c:table_load().)
>>> Table load sequence is:
>>> 1. populate table
>>> 2. set the table to ->new_map of the hash_cell for the mapped_device
>>> in protection by _hash_lock.
>>>
>>> Since your fix only serializes the step 1, concurrent table loading
>>> could end up with inconsistent status; e.g. request-based table is
>>> bound to the mapped_device while the queue is initialized as bio-based.
>>> With your new model, those 2 steps above must be atomic.
>>
>> Ah, yes.. I looked at the possibility of serializing the entirety of
>> table_load but determined that would be too excessive (would reduce
>> parallelism of table_load). But I clearly missed the fact that there
>> could be a race to the _hash_lock protected critical section in
>> table_load() -- leading to queue inconsistency.
>>
>> I'll post v5 of the overall patch which will revert the mapped_device
>> 'queue_lock' serialization that I proposed in v4. v5 will contain
>> the following patch to localize all table load related queue
>> manipulation to the _hash_lock protected critical section in
>> table_load(). So it sets the queue up _after_ the table's type is
>> established with dm_table_set_type().
>
> dm_table_setup_md_queue() may allocate memory with blocking mode.
> Blocking allocation inside exclusive _hash_lock can cause deadlock;
> e.g. when it has to wait for other dm devices to resume to free some
> memory.
We make no guarantees that other DM devices will resume before a table
load -- so calling dm_table_setup_md_queue() within the exclusive
_hash_lock is no different than other DM devices being suspended while
a request-based DM device performs its first table_load().
My thinking was this should not be a problem as it is only valid to
call dm_table_setup_md_queue() before the newly created request-based
DM device has been resumed.
AFAIK we don't have any explicit constraints on memory allocations
during table load (e.g. table loads shouldn't depend on other devices'
writeback) -- but any GFP_KERNEL allocation could recurse
(elevator_alloc() currently uses GFP_KERNEL with kmalloc_node)...
I'll have to review the DM code further to see if all memory
allocations during table_load() are done via mempools. I'll also
bring this up on this week's LVM call.
> Also, your patch changes the queue configuration even when a table is
> already active and used. (e.g. Loading bio-based table to a mapped_device
> which is already active/used as request-based sets q->requst_fn in NULL.)
> That could cause some critical problems.
Yes, that is possible and I can add additional checks to prevent this.
But this speaks to a more general problem with the existing DM code.
dm_swap_table() has the negative check to prevent such table loads, e.g.:
/* cannot change the device type, once a table is bound */
This check should come during table_load, as part of
dm_table_set_type(), rather than during table resume.
Thanks,
Mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-19 12:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-10 22:55 [RFC PATCH 1/2] block: allow initialization of previously allocated request_queue Mike Snitzer
2010-05-10 22:55 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] dm: only initialize full request_queue for request-based device Mike Snitzer
2010-05-11 4:23 ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-11 13:15 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-12 8:23 ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-13 3:57 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-14 8:06 ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-14 14:08 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-17 9:27 ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-17 17:27 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-18 8:32 ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-18 13:46 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-19 5:57 ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-19 12:01 ` Mike Snitzer [this message]
2010-05-19 14:39 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-19 14:45 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-20 11:21 ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-20 17:07 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-21 8:32 ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-21 13:34 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-24 9:58 ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-19 21:51 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-13 4:31 ` [PATCH 2/2 v2] " Mike Snitzer
2010-05-13 5:02 ` [RFC PATCH 3/2] dm: bio-based device must not register elevator in sysfs Mike Snitzer
2010-05-13 22:14 ` [PATCH 3/2 v2] " Mike Snitzer
2010-05-11 6:55 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] block: allow initialization of previously allocated request_queue Jens Axboe
2010-05-11 13:18 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-11 13:21 ` Jens Axboe
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=AANLkTinndXq8DkMBOUf5z8R_8lWRoRbDuOZ1LEmWeI21@mail.gmail.com \
--to=snitzer@redhat.com \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com \
--cc=knikanth@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=vgoyal@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).