On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:32:33PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12 2016 at 10:18pm -0400,
> Eric Wheeler <bcache@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 12 Jul 2016, NeilBrown wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 12 2016, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> > > ....
> > > >
> > > > Instead, I suggest to distinguish between recursive calls to
> > > > generic_make_request(), and pushing back the remainder part in
> > > > blk_queue_split(), by pointing current->bio_lists to a
> > > > struct recursion_to_iteration_bio_lists {
> > > > struct bio_list recursion;
> > > > struct bio_list queue;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > By providing each q->make_request_fn() with an empty "recursion"
> > > > bio_list, then merging any recursively submitted bios to the
> > > > head of the "queue" list, we can make the recursion-to-iteration
> > > > logic in generic_make_request() process deepest level bios first,
> > > > and "sibling" bios of the same level in "natural" order.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Lars Ellenberg <lars.ellenberg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Roland Kammerer <roland.kammerer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Thanks again for doing this - I think this is a very significant
> > > improvement and could allow other simplifications.
> >
> > Thank you Lars for all of this work!
> >
> > It seems like there have been many 4.3+ blockdev stacking issues and this
> > will certainly address some of those (maybe all of them?). (I think we
> > hit this while trying drbd in 4.4 so we dropped back to 4.1 without
> > issue.) It would be great to hear 4.4.y stable pick this up if
> > compatible.
> >
> >
> > Do you believe that this patch would solve any of the proposals by others
> > since 4.3 related to bio splitting/large bios? I've been collecting a
> > list, none of which appear have landed yet as of 4.7-rc7 (but correct me
> > if I'm wrong):
> >
> > A. [PATCH v2] block: make sure big bio is splitted into at most 256 bvecs
> > by Ming Lei: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9169483/
That's an independend issue.
> > B. block: don't make BLK_DEF_MAX_SECTORS too big
> > by Shaohua Li: http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-bcache/msg03525.html
Yet an other independend issue.
> > 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(¤t->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(¤t->bio_lists->queue, )
...
Something like that, maybe?
Just a thought.
> > D. dm-crypt: Fix error with too large bios
> > by Mikulas Patocka: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9138595/
> >
> > The A,B,D are known to fix large bio issues when stacking dm+bcache
> > (though the B,D are trivial and probably necessary even with your patch).
> >
> > Patch C was mentioned earlier in this thread by Mike Snitzer and you
> > commented briefly that his patch might solve the issue; given that, and in
> > the interest of minimizing duplicate effort, which of the following best
> > describes the situation?
> >
> > 1. Your patch could supersede Mikulas's patch; they address the same
> > issue.
> >
> > 2. Mikulas's patch addresses different issues such and both patches
> > should be applied.
> >
> > 3. There is overlap between both your patch and Mikulas's such that both
> > #1,#2 are true and effort to solve this has been duplicated.
> >
> >
> > If #3, then what might be done to resolve the overlap?
>
> Mikulas confirmed to me that he believes Lars' v2 patch will fix the
> dm-snapshot problem, which is being tracked with this BZ:
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=119841
>
> We'll see how testing goes (currently underway).
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
