lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/1] block: fix blk_queue_split() resource exhaustion
On Sat, Jan 07, 2017 at 10:01:07AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 07 2017, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 06 2017 at 12:34pm -0500,
> > Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 6 Jan 2017, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 4 Jan 2017, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >> > > On Wed, Jan 04 2017 at 12:12am -0500,
> >> > > NeilBrown <neilb@suse.com> wrote:
...

> >> > And with the above above patch, the snapshot deadlock bug still happens.
> >
> > That is really unfortunate. Would be useful to dig in and understand
> > why. Because ordering of the IO in generic_make_request() really should
> > take care of it.
>
> I *think* you might be able to resolve this by changing
> __split_and_process_bio() to only ever perform a single split. No
> looping.
> i.e. if the bio is too big to handle directly, then split off the front
> to a new bio, which you bio_chain to the original. The original then
> has bio_advance() called to stop over the front, then
> generic_make_request() so it is queued.
> Then the code proceeds to __clone_and_map_data_bio() on the front that
> got split off.
> When that completes it *doesn't* loop round, but returns into
> generic_make_request() which does the looping and makes sure to handle
> the lowest-level bio next.
>
> something vaguely like this:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/dm.c b/drivers/md/dm.c
> index 3086da5664f3..06ee0960e415 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/dm.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/dm.c
> @@ -1216,6 +1216,14 @@ static int __split_and_process_non_flush(struct clone_info *ci)
>
> len = min_t(sector_t, max_io_len(ci->sector, ti), ci->sector_count);
>
> + if (len < ci->sector_count) {
> + struct bio *split = bio_split(bio, len, GFP_NOIO, fs_bio_set);
> + bio_chain(split, bio);
> + generic_make_request(bio);
> + bio = split;
> + ci->sector_count = len;
> + }
> +
> r = __clone_and_map_data_bio(ci, ti, ci->sector, &len);
> if (r < 0)
> return r;
>
> though I haven't tested, and the change (if it works) should probably be
> more fully integrated into surrounding code.
>
> You probably don't want to use "fs_bio_set" either - a target-local
> pool would be best.
>
> NeilBrown

Which is pretty much what I suggested in this thread
back in July already, see below.

Cheers,
Lars

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 11:00:24AM +0200, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
...

> > > C. [1/3] block: flush queued bios when process blocks to avoid deadlock
> > > by Mikulas Patocka: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9204125/
> > > (was https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7398411/)
>
> As it stands now,
> this is yet an other issue, but related.
>
> From the link above:
>
> | ** Here is the dm-snapshot deadlock that was observed:
> |
> | 1) Process A sends one-page read bio to the dm-snapshot target. The bio
> | spans snapshot chunk boundary and so it is split to two bios by device
> | mapper.
> |
> | 2) Device mapper creates the first sub-bio and sends it to the snapshot
> | driver.
> |
> | 3) The function snapshot_map calls track_chunk (that allocates a
> | structure
> | dm_snap_tracked_chunk and adds it to tracked_chunk_hash) and then remaps
> | the bio to the underlying device and exits with DM_MAPIO_REMAPPED.
> |
> | 4) The remapped bio is submitted with generic_make_request, but it isn't
> | issued - it is added to current->bio_list instead.
> |
> | 5) Meanwhile, process B (dm's kcopyd) executes pending_complete for the
> | chunk affected be the first remapped bio, it takes down_write(&s->lock)
> | and then loops in __check_for_conflicting_io, waiting for
> | dm_snap_tracked_chunk created in step 3) to be released.
> |
> | 6) Process A continues, it creates a second sub-bio for the rest of the
> | original bio.
>
> Aha.
> Here is the relation.
> If "A" had only ever processed "just the chunk it can handle now",
> and "pushed back" the rest of the incoming bio,
> it could rely on all deeper level bios to have been submitted already.
>
> But this does not look like it easily fits into the current DM model.
>
> | 7) snapshot_map is called for this new bio, it waits on
> | down_write(&s->lock) that is held by Process B (in step 5).
>
> There is an other suggestion:
> Use down_trylock (or down_timeout),
> and if it fails, push back the currently to-be-processed bio.
> We can introduce a new bio helper for that.
> Kind of what blk_queue_split() does with my patch applied.
>
> Or even better, ignore the down_trylock suggestion,
> simply not iterate over all pieces first,
> but process one piece, and return back the the
> iteration in generic_make_request.
>
> A bit of conflict here may be that DM has all its own
> split and clone and queue magic, and wants to process
> "all of the bio" before returning back to generic_make_request().
>
> To change that, __split_and_process_bio() and all its helpers
> would need to learn to "push back" (pieces of) the bio they are
> currently working on, and not push back via "DM_ENDIO_REQUEUE",
> but by bio_list_add_head(&current->bio_lists->queue, piece_to_be_done_later).
>
> Then, after they processed each piece,
> *return* all the way up to the top-level generic_make_request(),
> where the recursion-to-iteration logic would then
> make sure that all deeper level bios, submitted via
> recursive calls to generic_make_request() will be processed, before the
> next, pushed back, piece of the "original incoming" bio.
>
> And *not* do their own iteration over all pieces first.
>
> Probably not as easy as dropping the while loop,
> using bio_advance, and pushing that "advanced" bio back to
> current->...queue?
>
> static void __split_and_process_bio(struct mapped_device *md,
> struct dm_table *map, struct bio *bio)
> ...
> ci.bio = bio;
> ci.sector_count = bio_sectors(bio);
> while (ci.sector_count && !error)
> error = __split_and_process_non_flush(&ci);
> ...
> error = __split_and_process_non_flush(&ci);
> if (ci.sector_count)
> bio_advance()
> bio_list_add_head(&current->bio_lists->queue, )
> ...
>
> Something like that, maybe?
> Just a thought.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-01-07 20:58    [W:0.261 / U:1.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site