lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: new patchset to eliminate DM's use of BIOSET_NEED_RESCUER


On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Mike Snitzer wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 21 2017 at 4:23pm -0500,
> Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > This is not correct:
> >
> > 2206 static void dm_wq_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > 2207 {
> > 2208 struct mapped_device *md = container_of(work, struct mapped_device, work);
> > 2209 struct bio *bio;
> > 2210 int srcu_idx;
> > 2211 struct dm_table *map;
> > 2212
> > 2213 if (!bio_list_empty(&md->rescued)) {
> > 2214 struct bio_list list;
> > 2215 spin_lock_irq(&md->deferred_lock);
> > 2216 list = md->rescued;
> > 2217 bio_list_init(&md->rescued);
> > 2218 spin_unlock_irq(&md->deferred_lock);
> > 2219 while ((bio = bio_list_pop(&list)))
> > 2220 generic_make_request(bio);
> > 2221 }
> > 2222
> > 2223 map = dm_get_live_table(md, &srcu_idx);
> > 2224
> > 2225 while (!test_bit(DMF_BLOCK_IO_FOR_SUSPEND, &md->flags)) {
> > 2226 spin_lock_irq(&md->deferred_lock);
> > 2227 bio = bio_list_pop(&md->deferred);
> > 2228 spin_unlock_irq(&md->deferred_lock);
> > 2229
> > 2230 if (!bio)
> > 2231 break;
> > 2232
> > 2233 if (dm_request_based(md))
> > 2234 generic_make_request(bio);
> > 2235 else
> > 2236 __split_and_process_bio(md, map, bio);
> > 2237 }
> > 2238
> > 2239 dm_put_live_table(md, srcu_idx);
> > 2240 }
> >
> > You can see that if we are in dm_wq_work in __split_and_process_bio, we
> > will not process md->rescued list.
>
> Can you elaborate further? We cannot be "in dm_wq_work in
> __split_and_process_bio" simultaneously. Do you mean as a side-effect
> of scheduling away from __split_and_process_bio?
>
> The more detail you can share the better.

Suppose this scenario:

* dm_wq_work calls __split_and_process_bio
* __split_and_process_bio eventually reaches the function snapshot_map
* snapshot_map attempts to take the snapshot lock

* the snapshot lock could be released only if some bios submitted by the
snapshot driver to the underlying device complete
* the bios submitted to the underlying device were already offloaded by
some other task and they are waiting on the list md->rescued
* the bios waiting on md->rescued are not processed, because dm_wq_work is
blocked in snapshot_map (called from __split_and_process_bio)

> > The processing of md->rescued is also wrong - bios for different devices
> > must be offloaded to different helper threads, so that processing a bio
> > for a lower device doesn't depend on processing a bio for a higher device.
> > If you offload all the bios on current->bio_list to the same thread, the
> > bios still depend on each other and the deadlock will still happen.
>
> Commit 325738403 ("dm: revise 'rescue' strategy for bio-based bioset
> allocations") speaks to this with:
>
> "Note that only current->bio_list[0] is offloaded. current->bio_list[1]
> contains bios that were scheduled *before* the current one started, so
> they must have been submitted from higher up the stack, and we cannot be
> waiting for them here (thanks to the "dm: ensure bio submission follows
> a depth-first tree walk" commit). Also, we now rescue *all* bios on the
> list as there is nothing to be gained by being more selective."

I think you are right - if we only offload current->bio_list[0], then
mixing of dependent bios on the offloaded list won't happen.

> And again: this patchset passes your dm-snapshot deadlock test. Is
> that test somehow lacking?

With your patchset, the deadlock would happen only if bios are queued on
&md->deferred - and that happens only in case of resume or if we are
processing REQ_PREFLUSH with non-zero data size.

So, the simple test that I wrote doesn't trigger it, but a more complex
test involving REQ_PREFLUSH could.

> Or do you see a hypothetical case where a deadlock is still possible?
> That is of less concern. I'd prefer that we tackle problems for
> targets, and associated scenarios, that we currently support.
>
> Either way, happy to review this with you further. Any fixes are
> welcomed too. But I'd like us to head in a direction that this patchset
> is taking us. Specifically: away from DM relying on BIOSET_NEED_RESCUER.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike

Mikulas

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-22 02:22    [W:0.090 / U:12.276 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site