On Sun, Aug 11, 2024 at 06:19:21PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote: > Supposing the following scenario. > > CPU0 CPU1 > > blk_mq_request_issue_directly() blk_mq_unquiesce_queue() > if (blk_queue_quiesced()) blk_queue_flag_clear(QUEUE_FLAG_QUIESCED) 3) store > blk_mq_insert_request() blk_mq_run_hw_queues() > /* blk_mq_run_hw_queue() > * Add request to dispatch list or set bitmap of if (!blk_mq_hctx_has_pending()) 4) load > * software queue. 1) store return > */ > blk_mq_run_hw_queue() > if (blk_queue_quiesced()) 2) load > return > blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests() > > The full memory barrier should be inserted between 1) and 2), as well as > between 3) and 4) to make sure that either CPU0 sees QUEUE_FLAG_QUIESCED is > cleared or CPU1 sees dispatch list or setting of bitmap of software queue. > Otherwise, either CPU will not re-run the hardware queue causing starvation. Memory barrier shouldn't serve as bug fix for two slow code paths. One simple fix is to add helper of blk_queue_quiesced_lock(), and call the following check on CPU0: if (blk_queue_quiesced_lock()) blk_mq_run_hw_queue(); thanks, Ming