Re: 4.14: WARNING: CPU: 4 PID: 2895 at block/blk-mq.c:1144 with virtio-blk

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 11/20/2017 12:29 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/20/2017 08:20 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 15:42 +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>> This is 
>>>
>>> b7a71e66d (Jens Axboe                2017-08-01 09:28:24 -0600 1141)     * are mapped to it.
>>> b7a71e66d (Jens Axboe                2017-08-01 09:28:24 -0600 1142)     */
>>> 6a83e74d2 (Bart Van Assche           2016-11-02 10:09:51 -0600 1143)    WARN_ON(!cpumask_test_cpu(raw_smp_processor_id(), hctx->cpumask) &&
>>> 6a83e74d2 (Bart Van Assche           2016-11-02 10:09:51 -0600 1144)            cpu_online(hctx->next_cpu));
>>> 6a83e74d2 (Bart Van Assche           2016-11-02 10:09:51 -0600 1145) 
>>> b7a71e66d (Jens Axboe                2017-08-01 09:28:24 -0600 1146)    /*
>>
>> Did you really try to figure out when the code that reported the warning
>> was introduced? I think that warning was introduced through the following
>> commit:
> 
> This was more a cut'n'paste to show which warning triggered since line numbers are somewhat volatile.
> 
>>
>> commit fd1270d5df6a005e1248e87042159a799cc4b2c9
>> Date:   Wed Apr 16 09:23:48 2014 -0600
>>
>>     blk-mq: don't use preempt_count() to check for right CPU
>>      
>>     UP or CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE will return 0, and what we really
>>     want to check is whether or not we are on the right CPU.
>>     So don't make PREEMPT part of this, just test the CPU in
>>     the mask directly.
>>
>> Anyway, I think that warning is appropriate and useful. So the next step
>> is to figure out what work item was involved and why that work item got
>> executed on the wrong CPU.
> 
> It seems to be related to virtio-blk (is triggered by fio on such disks). Your comment basically
> says: "no this is not a known issue" then :-)
> I will try to take a dump to find out the work item

blk-mq does not attempt to freeze/sync existing work if a CPU goes away,
and we reconfigure the mappings. So I don't think the above is unexpected,
if you are doing CPU hot unplug while running a fio job.

While it's a bit annoying that we trigger the WARN_ON() for a condition
that can happen, we're basically interested in it if it triggers for
normal operations.

-- 
Jens Axboe




[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [IDE]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux