On Wed, Nov 22 2017, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, NeilBrown wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 21 2017, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, Nov 21 2017 at 4:23pm -0500,
>> >> Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> 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)
>>
>> Yes, I think you are right.
>>
>> I think the solution is to get rid of the dm_offload() infrastructure
>> and make it not necessary.
>> i.e. discard my patches
>> dm: prepare to discontinue use of BIOSET_NEED_RESCUER
>> and
>> dm: revise 'rescue' strategy for bio-based bioset allocations
>>
>> And build on "dm: ensure bio submission follows a depth-first tree walk"
>> which was written after those and already makes dm_offload() less
>> important.
>>
>> Since that "depth-first" patch, every request to the dm device, after
>> the initial splitting, allocates just one dm_target_io structure, and
>> makes just one __map_bio() call, and so will behave exactly the way
>> generic_make_request() expects and copes with - thus avoiding awkward
>> dependencies and deadlocks. Except....
>>
>> a/ If any target defines ->num_write_bios() to return >1,
>> __clone_and_map_data_bio() will make multiple calls to alloc_tio()
>> and __map_bio(), which might need rescuing.
>> But no target defines num_write_bios, and none have since it was
>> removed from dm-cache 4.5 years ago.
>> Can we discard num_write_bios??
>>
>> b/ If any target sets any of num_{flush,discard,write_same,write_zeroes}_bios
>> to a value > 1, then __send_duplicate_bios() will also make multiple
>> calls to alloc_tio() and __map_bio().
>> Some do.
>> dm-cache-target: flush=2
>> dm-snap: flush=2
>> dm-stripe: discard, write_same, write_zeroes all set to 'stripes'.
>>
>> These will only be a problem if the second (or subsequent) alloc_tio()
>> blocks waiting for an earlier allocation to complete. This will only
>> be a problem if multiple threads are each trying to allocate multiple
>> dm_target_io from the same bioset at the same time.
>> This is rare and should be easier to address than the current
>> dm_offload() approach.
>> One possibility would be to copy the approach taken by
>> crypt_alloc_buffer() which needs to allocate multiple entries from a
>> mempool.
>> It first tries the with GFP_NOWAIT. If that fails it take a mutex and
>> tries with GFP_NOIO. This mean only one thread will try to allocate
>> multiple bios at once, so there can be no deadlock.
>>
>> Below are two RFC patches. The first removes num_write_bios.
>> The second is incomplete and makes a stab are allocating multiple bios
>> at once safely.
>> A third would be needed to remove dm_offload() etc... but I cannot quite
>> fit that in today - must be off.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> NeilBrown
>
> Another problem is this:
>
> struct bio *b = bio_clone_bioset(bio, GFP_NOIO, md->queue->bio_split);
> bio_advance(b, (bio_sectors(b) - ci.sector_count) << 9);
> bio_chain(b, bio);
>
> What if it blocks because the bioset is exhausted?
>
> The code basically builds a chain of bios of unlimited length (suppose for
> example a case when we are splitting on every sector boundary, so there
> will be one bio for every sector in the original bio), it could exhaust
> the bioset easily.
>
> It would be better to use mechanism from md-raid that chains all the
> sub-bios to the same master bio and doesn't create long chains of bios:
>
> if (max_sectors < bio_sectors(bio)) {
> struct bio *split = bio_split(bio, max_sectors,
> gfp, conf->bio_split);
> bio_chain(split, bio);
> generic_make_request(bio);
> bio = split;
> r1_bio->master_bio = bio;
> r1_bio->sectors = max_sectors;
> }
>
> Mikulas
Yes, you are right something like that would be better.
Also send_changing_extent_only allocates bios in a loop which can cause
problems.
I think we need to get __split_and_process_non_flush(), in all its
branches, to check if len is too large for a single request, and if it
is, create a clone for the prefix, attached that to the ci and map it,
advance the original bio, and call generic_make_request on it.
That shouldn't be too hard, but it is a change that would touch a few
places.
I'll see if I can write something.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
