On Sat, Feb 08, 2025 at 06:26:38PM +0530, Nilay Shroff wrote:
>
>
> On 2/8/25 4:11 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 07:24:02PM +0530, Nilay Shroff wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2/5/25 9:23 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 05, 2025 at 08:14:48PM +0530, Nilay Shroff wrote:
> >>>> The sysfs attributes are already protected with sysfs/kernfs internal
> >>>> locking. So acquiring q->sysfs_lock is not needed while accessing sysfs
> >>>> attribute files. So this change helps avoid holding q->sysfs_lock while
> >>>> accessing sysfs attribute files.
> >>>
> >>> the sysfs/kernfs locking only protects against other accesses using
> >>> sysfs. But that's not really the most interesting part here. We
> >>> also want to make sure nothing changes underneath in a way that
> >>> could cause crashes (and maybe even torn information).
> >>>
> >>> We'll really need to audit what is accessed in each method and figure
> >>> out what protects it. Chances are that sysfs_lock provides that
> >>> protection in some case right now, and chances are also very high
> >>> that a lot of this is pretty broken.
> >>>
> >> Yes that's possible and so I audited all sysfs attributes which are
> >> currently protected using q->sysfs_lock and I found some interesting
> >> facts. Please find below:
> >>
> >> 1. io_poll:
> >> Write to this attribute is ignored. So, we don't need q->sysfs_lock.
> >>
> >> 2. io_poll_delay:
> >> Write to this attribute is NOP, so we don't need q->sysfs_lock.
> >>
> >> 3. io_timeout:
> >> Write to this attribute updates q->rq_timeout and read of this attribute
> >> returns the value stored in q->rq_timeout Moreover, the q->rq_timeout is
> >> set only once when we init the queue (under blk_mq_init_allocated_queue())
> >> even before disk is added. So that means that we may not need to protect
> >> it with q->sysfs_lock.
> >>
> >> 4. nomerges:
> >> Write to this attribute file updates two q->flags : QUEUE_FLAG_NOMERGES
> >> and QUEUE_FLAG_NOXMERGES. These flags are accessed during bio-merge which
> >> anyways doesn't run with q->sysfs_lock held. Moreover, the q->flags are
> >> updated/accessed with bitops which are atomic. So, I believe, protecting
> >> it with q->sysfs_lock is not necessary.
> >>
> >> 5. nr_requests:
> >> Write to this attribute updates the tag sets and this could potentially
> >> race with __blk_mq_update_nr_hw_queues(). So I think we should really
> >> protect it with q->tag_set->tag_list_lock instead of q->sysfs_lock.
> >>
> >> 6. read_ahead_kb:
> >> Write to this attribute file updates disk->bdi->ra_pages. The disk->bdi->
> >> ra_pages is also updated under queue_limits_commit_update() which runs
> >> holding q->limits_lock; so I think this attribute file should be protected
> >> with q->limits_lock and protecting it with q->sysfs_lock is not necessary.
> >> Maybe we should move it under the same sets of attribute files which today
> >> runs with q->limits_lock held.
> >>
> >> 7. rq_affinity:
> >> Write to this attribute file makes atomic updates to q->flags: QUEUE_FLAG_SAME_COMP
> >> and QUEUE_FLAG_SAME_FORCE. These flags are also accessed from blk_mq_complete_need_ipi()
> >> using test_bit macro. As read/write to q->flags uses bitops which are atomic,
> >> protecting it with q->stsys_lock is not necessary.
> >>
> >> 8. scheduler:
> >> Write to this attribute actually updates q->elevator and the elevator change/switch
> >> code expects that the q->sysfs_lock is held while we update the iosched to protect
> >> against the simultaneous __blk_mq_update_nr_hw_queues update. So yes, this field needs
> >> q->sysfs_lock protection.
> >>
> >> However if we're thinking of protecting sched change/update using q->tag_sets->
> >> tag_list_lock (as discussed in another thread), then we may use q->tag_set->
> >> tag_list_lock instead of q->sysfs_lock here while reading/writing to this attribute
> >> file.
> >
> > This is one misuse of tag_list_lock, which is supposed to cover host
> > wide change, and shouldn't be used for request queue level protection,
> > which is exactly provided by q->sysfs_lock.
> >
> Yes I think Christoph was also pointed about the same but then assuming
> schedule/elevator update would be a rare operation it may not cause
> a lot of contention. Having said that, I'm also fine creating another
> lock just to protect elevator changes and removing ->sysfs_lock from
> elevator code.
Then please use new lock.
>
> > Not mention it will cause ABBA deadlock over freeze lock, please see
> > blk_mq_update_nr_hw_queues(). And it can't be used for protecting
> > 'nr_requests' too.
> I don't know how this might cause ABBA deadlock. The proposal here's to
> use ->tag_list_lock (instead of ->sysfs_lock) while updating scheduler
> attribute from sysfs as well as while we update the elevator through
> __blk_mq_update_nr_hw_queues().
>
> In each code path (either from sysfs attribute update or from nr_hw_queues
> update), we first acquire ->tag_list_lock and then freeze-lock.
>
> Do you see any code path where the above order might not be followed?
You patch 14ef49657ff3 ("block: fix nr_hw_queue update racing with disk addition/removal")
has added one such warning: blk_mq_sysfs_unregister() is called after
queue freeze lock is grabbed from del_gendisk()
Also there are many such use cases in nvme: blk_mq_quiesce_tagset()/blk_mq_unquiesce_tagset()
called after tagset is frozen.
More serious, driver may grab ->tag_list_lock in error recovery code for
providing forward progress, you have to be careful wrt. using ->tag_list_lock,
for example:
mutex_lock(->tag_list_lock)
blk_mq_freeze_queue() // If IO timeout happens, the driver timeout
// handler stuck on mutex_lock(->tag_list_lock)
Thanks,
Ming
