On 02/13/2017 11:58 PM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 02/13/2017 11:28 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 02/13/2017 03:09 PM, Omar Sandoval wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:01:07PM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>>> If, at boot, a legacy I/O scheduler is chosen for a device using blk-mq,
>>>> or, viceversa, a blk-mq scheduler is chosen for a device using blk, then
>>>> that scheduler is set and initialized without any check, driving the
>>>> system into an inconsistent state. This commit addresses this issue by
>>>> letting elevator_get fail for these wrong cross choices.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> block/elevator.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++--------
>>>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Hey, Paolo,
>>>
>>> How exactly are you triggering this? In __elevator_change(), we do check
>>> for mq or not mq:
>>>
>>> if (!e->uses_mq && q->mq_ops) {
>>> elevator_put(e);
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>> }
>>> if (e->uses_mq && !q->mq_ops) {
>>> elevator_put(e);
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>> }
>>>
>>> We don't ever appear to call elevator_init() with a specific scheduler
>>> name, and for the default we switch off of q->mq_ops and use the
>>> defaults from Kconfig:
>>>
>>> if (q->mq_ops && q->nr_hw_queues == 1)
>>> e = elevator_get(CONFIG_DEFAULT_SQ_IOSCHED, false);
>>> else if (q->mq_ops)
>>> e = elevator_get(CONFIG_DEFAULT_MQ_IOSCHED, false);
>>> else
>>> e = elevator_get(CONFIG_DEFAULT_IOSCHED, false);
>>>
>>> if (!e) {
>>> printk(KERN_ERR
>>> "Default I/O scheduler not found. " \
>>> "Using noop/none.\n");
>>> e = elevator_get("noop", false);
>>> }
>>>
>>> So I guess this could happen if someone manually changed those Kconfig
>>> options, but I don't see what other case would make this happen, could
>>> you please explain?
>>
>> Was wondering the same - is it using the 'elevator=' boot parameter?
>> Didn't look at that path just now, but that's the only one I could
>> think of. If it is, I'd much prefer only using 'chosen_elevator' for
>> the non-mq stuff, and the fix should be just that instead.
>>
> [ .. ]
> While we're at the topic:
>
> Can't we use the same names for legacy and mq scheduler?
> It's quite an unnecessary complication to have
> 'noop', 'deadline', and 'cfq' for legacy, but 'none' and 'mq-deadline'
> for mq. If we could use 'noop' and 'deadline' for mq, too, the existing
> settings or udev rules will continue to work and we wouldn't get any
> annoying and pointless warnings here...
I'm fine with potentially renaming mq-deadline to deadline, but I don't
want to mix up none and noop. One is an actual scheduler, the other is
not.
--
Jens Axboe
