Re: [PATCH 7/7] blk-mq: Fix another queue stall

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

 



On 11/30/2017 05:08 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> The following code at the end of blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list() detects
> whether or not wake_up(&hctx->dispatch_wait) has been called
> concurrently with pushing back requests onto the dispatch list:
> 
>     list_empty_careful(&hctx->dispatch_wait.entry)
> 
> Since blk_mq_dispatch_wake() is protected by another lock than the
> dispatch list and since blk_mq_run_hw_queue() does not acquire any
> lock if it notices that no requests are pending,
> blk_mq_dispatch_wake() is not ordered against the code that pushes
> back requests onto the dispatch list. Avoid that the dispatch_wait
> empty check fails due to load/store reordering by serializing it
> against the dispatch_wait queue wakeup. This patch fixes a queue
> stall I ran into while testing a SCSI initiator driver with the
> maximum target depth set to one.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Omar Sandoval <osandov@xxxxxx>
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> Cc: Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>  block/blk-mq.c | 16 +++++++++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> index b4225f606737..a11767a4d95c 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> @@ -1074,6 +1074,20 @@ static bool blk_mq_mark_tag_wait(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx **hctx,
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
> +static bool blk_mq_dispatch_list_empty(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> +{
> +	struct sbq_wait_state *ws = bt_wait_ptr(&hctx->tags->bitmap_tags, hctx);
> +	struct wait_queue_head *wq_head = &ws->wait;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	bool result;
> +
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&wq_head->lock, flags);
> +	result = list_empty(&hctx->dispatch_wait.entry);
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&wq_head->lock, flags);
> +
> +	return result;
> +}

This can't fix anything, since you're still depending on the state
outside the lock. You probably just changed the window slightly.

-- 
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