On Fri, Jun 19 2020 at 6:11am -0400, Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Mike, > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 05:42:50AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > Hi Ming, > > > > Thanks for the patch! But I'm having a hard time understanding what > > you've written in the patch header, > > > > On Fri, Jun 19 2020 at 4:42am -0400, > > Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > dm-rq won't stop queue, meantime blk-mq won't stop one queue too, so > > > remove the check. > > > > It'd be helpful if you could unpack this with more detail before going on > > to explain why using blk_queue_quiesced, despite dm-rq using > > blk_mq_queue_stopped, would also be ineffective. > > > > SO: > > > > > dm-rq won't stop queue > > > > 1) why won't dm-rq stop the queue? Do you mean it won't reliably > > _always_ stop the queue because of the blk_mq_queue_stopped() check? > > device mapper doesn't call blk_mq_stop_hw_queue or blk_mq_stop_hw_queues. > > > > > > meantime blk-mq won't stop one queue too, so remove the check. > > > > 2) Meaning?: blk_mq_queue_stopped() will return true even if only one hw > > queue is stopped, given blk-mq must stop all hw queues a positive return > > from this blk_mq_queue_stopped() check is incorrectly assuming it meanss > > all hw queues are stopped. > > blk-mq won't call blk_mq_stop_hw_queue or blk_mq_stop_hw_queues for > dm-rq's queue too, so dm-rq's hw queue won't be stopped. > > BTW blk_mq_stop_hw_queue or blk_mq_stop_hw_queues are supposed to be > used for throttling queue. I'm going to look at actually stopping the queue (using one of these interfaces). I didn't realize I wasn't actually stopping the queue. The intent was to do so. In speaking with Jens yesterday about freeze vs stop: it is clear that dm-rq needs to still be able to allocate new requests, but _not_ call the queue_rq to issue the requests, while "stopped" (due to dm-mpath potentially deferring retries of failed requests because of path failure while quiescing the queue during DM device suspend). But that freezing the queue goes too far because it won't allow such request allocation. > > > dm_stop_queue() actually tries to quiesce hw queues via blk_mq_quiesce_queue(), > > > we can't check via blk_queue_quiesced for avoiding unnecessary queue > > > quiesce because the flag is set before synchronize_rcu() and dm_stop_queue > > > may be called when synchronize_rcu from another blk_mq_quiesce_queue is > > > in-progress. > > > > But I'm left with questions/confusion on this too: > > > > 1) you mention blk_queue_quiesced instead of blk_mq_queue_stopped, so I > > assume you mean that: not only is blk_mq_queue_stopped() > > ineffective, blk_queue_quiesced() would be too? > > blk_mq_queue_stopped isn't necessary because dm-rq's hw queue won't be > stopped by anyone, meantime replacing it with blk_queue_quiesced() is wrong. > > > > > 2) the race you detail (with competing blk_mq_quiesce_queue) relative to > > synchronize_rcu() and testing "the flag" is very detailed yet vague. > > If two code paths are calling dm_stop_queue() at the same time, one path may > return immediately and it is wrong, sine synchronize_rcu() from another path > may not be done. > > > > > Anyway, once we get this heaader cleaned up a bit more I'll be happy to > > get this staged as a stable@ fix for 5.8 inclusion ASAP. > > This patch isn't a fix, and it shouldn't be related with rhel8's issue. I realize that now. I've changed the patch header to be a bit clearer and staged it for 5.9, see: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/device-mapper/linux-dm.git/commit/?h=dm-5.9&id=06e788ed59e0095b679bdce9e39c1a251032ae62 Thanks, Mike -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
