Hi,
just a followup: the system ran over 2 days without my workload being able to trigger the issue. I’ve seen there is another thread where this patch wasn’t sufficient and if i understand correctly, Yu and Xiao are working on an amalgamated fix?
Christian
> On 12. Nov 2024, at 07:57, Christian Theune <ct@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> my workload has been running for 22 hours now successfully - it seems that the patch works.
>
> If this gets accepted then I’d kindly ask for an LTS backport to 6.6.
>
> Thanks to everyone for helping figuring this out and fixing it!
>
> Christian
>
>> On 11. Nov 2024, at 15:34, Christian Theune <ct@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> I’ve been running withy my workflow that is known to trigger the issue reliably for about 6 hours now. This is longer than it worked before.
>> I’m leaving the office for today and will leave things running over night and report back tomorrow.
>>
>> Christian
>>
>>> On 11. Nov 2024, at 09:00, Christian Theune <ct@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I’m trying this with 6.11.7 today.
>>>
>>> Christian
>>>
>>>> On 9. Nov 2024, at 12:35, Xiao Ni <xni@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 3:55 PM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>
>>>>> 在 2024/11/06 14:40, Christian Theune 写道:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 6. Nov 2024, at 07:35, Yu Kuai <yukuai1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 在 2024/11/05 18:15, Christian Theune 写道:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> after about 2 hours it stalled again. Here’s the full blocked process dump. (Tell me if this isn’t helpful, otherwise I’ll keep posting that as it’s the only real data I can show)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is bad news :(
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yeah. But: the good new is that we aren’t eating any data so far … ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While reviewing related code, I come up with a plan to move bitmap
>>>>>>> start/end write ops to the upper layer. Make sure each write IO from
>>>>>>> upper layer only start once and end once, this is easy to make sure
>>>>>>> they are balanced and can avoid many calls to improve performance as
>>>>>>> well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like a plan!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, I need a few days to cooke a patch after work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure thing! I’ll switch off bitmaps for that time - I’m happy we found a workaround so we can take time to resolve it cleanly. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> I wrote a simple and crude version, please give it a test again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Kuai
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c
>>>>> index d3a837506a36..5e1a82b79e41 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/md/md.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/md/md.c
>>>>> @@ -8753,6 +8753,30 @@ void md_submit_discard_bio(struct mddev *mddev,
>>>>> struct md_rdev *rdev,
>>>>> }
>>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(md_submit_discard_bio);
>>>>>
>>>>> +static bool is_raid456(struct mddev *mddev)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + return mddev->pers->level == 4 || mddev->pers->level == 5 ||
>>>>> + mddev->pers->level == 6;
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void bitmap_startwrite(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *bio)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + if (!is_raid456(mddev) || !mddev->bitmap)
>>>>> + return;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + md_bitmap_startwrite(mddev->bitmap, bio_offset(bio),
>>>>> bio_sectors(bio),
>>>>> + 0);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void bitmap_endwrite(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *bio,
>>>>> sector_t sectors)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + if (!is_raid456(mddev) || !mddev->bitmap)
>>>>> + return;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + md_bitmap_endwrite(mddev->bitmap, bio_offset(bio), sectors,o
>>>>> + bio->bi_status == BLK_STS_OK, 0);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> static void md_end_clone_io(struct bio *bio)
>>>>> {
>>>>> struct md_io_clone *md_io_clone = bio->bi_private;
>>>>> @@ -8765,6 +8789,7 @@ static void md_end_clone_io(struct bio *bio)
>>>>> if (md_io_clone->start_time)
>>>>> bio_end_io_acct(orig_bio, md_io_clone->start_time);
>>>>>
>>>>> + bitmap_endwrite(mddev, orig_bio, md_io_clone->sectors);
>>>>> bio_put(bio);
>>>>> bio_endio(orig_bio);
>>>>> percpu_ref_put(&mddev->active_io);
>>>>> @@ -8778,6 +8803,7 @@ static void md_clone_bio(struct mddev *mddev,
>>>>> struct bio **bio)
>>>>> bio_alloc_clone(bdev, *bio, GFP_NOIO,
>>>>> &mddev->io_clone_set);
>>>>>
>>>>> md_io_clone = container_of(clone, struct md_io_clone, bio_clone);
>>>>> + md_io_clone->sectors = bio_sectors(*bio);
>>>>> md_io_clone->orig_bio = *bio;
>>>>> md_io_clone->mddev = mddev;
>>>>> if (blk_queue_io_stat(bdev->bd_disk->queue))
>>>>> @@ -8790,6 +8816,7 @@ static void md_clone_bio(struct mddev *mddev,
>>>>> struct bio **bio)
>>>>>
>>>>> void md_account_bio(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio **bio)
>>>>> {
>>>>> + bitmap_startwrite(mddev, *bio);
>>>>> percpu_ref_get(&mddev->active_io);
>>>>> md_clone_bio(mddev, bio);
>>>>> }
>>>>> @@ -8807,6 +8834,8 @@ void md_free_cloned_bio(struct bio *bio)
>>>>> if (md_io_clone->start_time)
>>>>> bio_end_io_acct(orig_bio, md_io_clone->start_time);
>>>>>
>>>>> + bitmap_endwrite(mddev, orig_bio, md_io_clone->sectors);
>>>>> +
>>>>> bio_put(bio);
>>>>> percpu_ref_put(&mddev->active_io);
>>>>> }
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/md/md.h b/drivers/md/md.h
>>>>> index a0d6827dced9..0c2794230e0a 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/md/md.h
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/md/md.h
>>>>> @@ -837,6 +837,7 @@ struct md_io_clone {
>>>>> struct mddev *mddev;
>>>>> struct bio *orig_bio;
>>>>> unsigned long start_time;
>>>>> + sector_t sectors;
>>>>> struct bio bio_clone;
>>>>> };
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
>>>>> index c14cf2410365..4f009e32f68a 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
>>>>> @@ -3561,12 +3561,6 @@ static void __add_stripe_bio(struct stripe_head
>>>>> *sh, struct bio *bi,
>>>>> * is added to a batch, STRIPE_BIT_DELAY cannot be changed
>>>>> * any more.
>>>>> */
>>>>> - set_bit(STRIPE_BITMAP_PENDING, &sh->state);
>>>>> - spin_unlock_irq(&sh->stripe_lock);
>>>>> - md_bitmap_startwrite(conf->mddev->bitmap, sh->sector,
>>>>> - RAID5_STRIPE_SECTORS(conf), 0);
>>>>> - spin_lock_irq(&sh->stripe_lock);
>>>>> - clear_bit(STRIPE_BITMAP_PENDING, &sh->state);
>>>>> if (!sh->batch_head) {
>>>>> sh->bm_seq = conf->seq_flush+1;
>>>>> set_bit(STRIPE_BIT_DELAY, &sh->state);
>>>>> @@ -3621,7 +3615,6 @@ handle_failed_stripe(struct r5conf *conf, struct
>>>>> stripe_head *sh,
>>>>> BUG_ON(sh->batch_head);
>>>>> for (i = disks; i--; ) {
>>>>> struct bio *bi;
>>>>> - int bitmap_end = 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> if (test_bit(R5_ReadError, &sh->dev[i].flags)) {
>>>>> struct md_rdev *rdev = conf->disks[i].rdev;
>>>>> @@ -3646,8 +3639,6 @@ handle_failed_stripe(struct r5conf *conf, struct
>>>>> stripe_head *sh,
>>>>> sh->dev[i].towrite = NULL;
>>>>> sh->overwrite_disks = 0;
>>>>> spin_unlock_irq(&sh->stripe_lock);
>>>>> - if (bi)
>>>>> - bitmap_end = 1;
>>>>>
>>>>> log_stripe_write_finished(sh);
>>>>> @@ -3662,10 +3653,6 @@ handle_failed_stripe(struct r5conf *conf, struct
>>>>> stripe_head *sh,
>>>>> bio_io_error(bi);
>>>>> bi = nextbi;
>>>>> }
>>>>> - if (bitmap_end)
>>>>> - md_bitmap_endwrite(conf->mddev->bitmap, sh->sector,
>>>>> - RAID5_STRIPE_SECTORS(conf),
>>>>> 0, 0);
>>>>> - bitmap_end = 0;
>>>>> /* and fail all 'written' */
>>>>> bi = sh->dev[i].written;
>>>>> sh->dev[i].written = NULL;
>>>>> @@ -3674,7 +3661,6 @@ handle_failed_stripe(struct r5conf *conf, struct
>>>>> stripe_head *sh,
>>>>> sh->dev[i].page = sh->dev[i].orig_page;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> - if (bi) bitmap_end = 1;
>>>>> while (bi && bi->bi_iter.bi_sector <
>>>>> sh->dev[i].sector + RAID5_STRIPE_SECTORS(conf)) {
>>>>> struct bio *bi2 = r5_next_bio(conf, bi,
>>>>> sh->dev[i].sector);
>>>>> @@ -3708,9 +3694,6 @@ handle_failed_stripe(struct r5conf *conf, struct
>>>>> stripe_head *sh,
>>>>> bi = nextbi;
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> - if (bitmap_end)
>>>>> - md_bitmap_endwrite(conf->mddev->bitmap, sh->sector,
>>>>> - RAID5_STRIPE_SECTORS(conf),
>>>>> 0, 0);
>>>>> /* If we were in the middle of a write the parity block
>>>>> might
>>>>> * still be locked - so just clear all R5_LOCKED flags
>>>>> */
>>>>> @@ -4059,10 +4042,6 @@ static void handle_stripe_clean_event(struct
>>>>> r5conf *conf,
>>>>> bio_endio(wbi);
>>>>> wbi = wbi2;
>>>>> }
>>>>> - md_bitmap_endwrite(conf->mddev->bitmap,
>>>>> sh->sector,
>>>>> -
>>>>> RAID5_STRIPE_SECTORS(conf),
>>>>> -
>>>>> !test_bit(STRIPE_DEGRADED, &sh->state),
>>>>> - 0);
>>>>> if (head_sh->batch_head) {
>>>>> sh =
>>>>> list_first_entry(&sh->batch_list,
>>>>> struct
>>>>> stripe_head,
>>>>> @@ -5788,13 +5767,6 @@ static void make_discard_request(struct mddev
>>>>> *mddev, struct bio *bi)
>>>>> }
>>>>> spin_unlock_irq(&sh->stripe_lock);
>>>>> if (conf->mddev->bitmap) {
>>>>> - for (d = 0;
>>>>> - d < conf->raid_disks - conf->max_degraded;
>>>>> - d++)
>>>>> - md_bitmap_startwrite(mddev->bitmap,
>>>>> - sh->sector,
>>>>> -
>>>>> RAID5_STRIPE_SECTORS(conf),
>>>>> - 0);
>>>>> sh->bm_seq = conf->seq_flush + 1;
>>>>> set_bit(STRIPE_BIT_DELAY, &sh->state);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks a lot for your help!
>>>>>> Christian
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Kuai
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it's not good to put the bitmap operation from raid5 to md which
>>>> the new api is only used for raid5. And the bitmap region which raid5
>>>> needs to handle is based on the member disk. It should be calculated
>>>> rather than the bio address space. Because the bio address space is
>>>> for the whole array.
>>>>
>>>> We have a customer who reports a similar problem. There is a patch
>>>> from David. I put it in the attachment.
>>>>
>>>> @Christian, can you have a try with the patch? It can be applied
>>>> cleanly on 6.11-rc6
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Xiao
>>>> <md_raid5_one_bitmap_claim_per_stripe_head.patch>
>>>
>>> Liebe Grüße,
>>> Christian Theune
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christian Theune · ct@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx · +49 345 219401 0
>>> Flying Circus Internet Operations GmbH · https://flyingcircus.io
>>> Leipziger Str. 70/71 · 06108 Halle (Saale) · Deutschland
>>> HR Stendal HRB 21169 · Geschäftsführer: Christian Theune, Christian Zagrodnick
>>>
>>
>> Liebe Grüße,
>> Christian Theune
>>
>> --
>> Christian Theune · ct@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx · +49 345 219401 0
>> Flying Circus Internet Operations GmbH · https://flyingcircus.io
>> Leipziger Str. 70/71 · 06108 Halle (Saale) · Deutschland
>> HR Stendal HRB 21169 · Geschäftsführer: Christian Theune, Christian Zagrodnick
>>
>
> Liebe Grüße,
> Christian Theune
>
> --
> Christian Theune · ct@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx · +49 345 219401 0
> Flying Circus Internet Operations GmbH · https://flyingcircus.io
> Leipziger Str. 70/71 · 06108 Halle (Saale) · Deutschland
> HR Stendal HRB 21169 · Geschäftsführer: Christian Theune, Christian Zagrodnick
>
>
Liebe Grüße,
Christian Theune
--
Christian Theune · ct@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx · +49 345 219401 0
Flying Circus Internet Operations GmbH · https://flyingcircus.io
Leipziger Str. 70/71 · 06108 Halle (Saale) · Deutschland
HR Stendal HRB 21169 · Geschäftsführer: Christian Theune, Christian Zagrodnick
