Re: [PATCH v2] nbd: Don't use workqueue to handle recv work

Yongji Xie
2022-05-16T06:13:16Z

Ping.

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 7:21 PM Yongji Xie <xieyongji@bytedance.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 4:11 AM Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 05:12:41PM +0800, Xie Yongji wrote:
> > > The rescuer thread might take over the works queued on
> > > the workqueue when the worker thread creation timed out.
> > > If this happens, we have no chance to create multiple
> > > recv threads which causes I/O hung on this nbd device.
> > >
> > > To fix it, we can not simply remove the WQ_MEM_RECLAIM
> > > flag since the recv work is in the memory reclaim path.
> > > So this patch tries to create kthreads directly to
> > > handle the recv work instead of using workqueue.
> > >
> >
> > I still don't understand why we can't drop WQ_MEM_RECLAIM. IIRC your argument
> > is that we need it because a reconnect could happen under memory pressure and we
> > need to be able to queue work for that. However your code makes it so we're
> > just doing a kthread_create(), which isn't coming out of some emergency pool, so
> > it's just as likely to fail as a !WQ_MEM_RECLAIM workqueue. Thanks,
> >
>
> I think the key point is the context in which the work thread is
> created. It's the context of the nbd process if using kthread_create()
> to create a workthread (might do some allocation). Then we can benefit
> from the PR_SET_IO_FLUSHER flag, so memory reclaim would never hit the
> page cache on the nbd device. But using queue_work() to create a
> workthread, the actual thread creation happens in the context of the
> work thread rather than the nbd process, so we can't rely on the
> PR_SET_IO_FLUSHER flag to avoid deadlock.
>
> Thanks,
> Yongji