lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH v3 3/3] blk-mq: Lockout tagset iterator when exiting elevator
From
Date
On 06/03/2021 04:43, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 3/5/21 7:14 AM, John Garry wrote:
>> diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.c b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
>> index 7ff1b20d58e7..5950fee490e8 100644
>> --- a/block/blk-mq-tag.c
>> +++ b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
>> @@ -358,11 +358,16 @@ void blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter(struct blk_mq_tag_set *tagset,
>> {
>> int i;
>>
>> + if (!atomic_inc_not_zero(&tagset->iter_usage_counter))
>> + return;
>> +
>> for (i = 0; i < tagset->nr_hw_queues; i++) {
>> if (tagset->tags && tagset->tags[i])
>> __blk_mq_all_tag_iter(tagset->tags[i], fn, priv,
>> BT_TAG_ITER_STARTED);
>> }
>> +
>> + atomic_dec(&tagset->iter_usage_counter);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter);

Hi Bart,

> This changes the behavior of blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter(). What will e.g.
> happen if the mtip driver calls blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter(&dd->tags,
> mtip_abort_cmd, dd) concurrently with another blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter()
> call and if that causes all mtip_abort_cmd() calls to be skipped?

I'm not sure that I understand this problem you describe. So if
blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter(&dd->tags, mtip_abort_cmd, dd) is called, either
can happen:
a. normal operation, iter_usage_counter initially holds >= 1, and then
iter_usage_counter is incremented in blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() and we
iter the busy tags. Any parallel call to blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() will
also increase iter_usage_counter.
b. we're switching IO scheduler. In this scenario, first we quiesce all
queues. After that, there should be no active requests. At that point,
we ensure any calls to blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() are finished and block
(or discard may be a better term) any more calls. Blocking any more
calls should be safe as there are no requests to iter. atomic_cmpxchg()
is used to set iter_usage_counter to 0, blocking any more calls.

>
>> + while (atomic_cmpxchg(&set->iter_usage_counter, 1, 0) != 1);
> Isn't it recommended to call cpu_relax() inside busy-waiting loops?

Maybe, but I am considering changing this patch to use percpu_refcnt() -
I need to check it further.

>
>> blk_mq_sched_free_requests(q);
>> __elevator_exit(q, e);
>>
>> + atomic_set(&set->iter_usage_counter, 1);
> Can it happen that the above atomic_set() call happens while a
> blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() call is in progress?

No, as at this point it should be ensured that iter_usage_counter holds
0 from atomic_cmpxchg(), so there should be no active processes in
blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() sensitive region. Calls to
blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() are blocked when iter_usage_counter holds 0.

> Should that atomic_set()
> call perhaps be changed into an atomic_inc() call?

They have the same affect in practice, but we use atomic_set() in
blk_mq_alloc_tag_set(), so at least consistent.

Thanks,
John

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-03-08 12:20    [W:0.062 / U:0.784 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site