On 8/20/18 8:58 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 8/20/18 4:42 PM, Balbir Singh wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 02:20:59PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >>> On 8/20/18 2:19 PM, van der Linden, Frank wrote: >>>> On 8/20/18 12:29 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>> On 8/20/18 1:08 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>> On 8/20/18 11:34 AM, van der Linden, Frank wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/20/18 9:37 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/7/18 3:19 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/7/18 3:12 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 02:39:48PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/7/18 2:12 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 08:29:44AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/1/18 4:09 PM, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 8/1/18 11:06 AM, Anchal Agarwal wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 09:14:50AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/31/18 3:34 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi folks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch modifies commit e34cbd307477a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (blk-wbt: add general throttling mechanism) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am currently running a large bare metal instance (i3.metal) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on EC2 with 72 cores, 512GB of RAM and NVME drives, with a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.18 kernel. I have a workload that simulates a database >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> workload and I am running into lockup issues when writeback >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> throttling is enabled,with the hung task detector also >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kicking in. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Crash dumps show that most CPUs (up to 50 of them) are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all trying to get the wbt wait queue lock while trying to add >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves to it in __wbt_wait (see stack traces below). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948118] CPU: 45 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/45 Not tainted 4.14.51-62.38.amzn1.x86_64 #1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948119] Hardware name: Amazon EC2 i3.metal/Not Specified, BIOS 1.0 10/16/2017 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948120] task: ffff883f7878c000 task.stack: ffffc9000c69c000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948124] RIP: 0010:native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath+0xf8/0x1a0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948125] RSP: 0018:ffff883f7fcc3dc8 EFLAGS: 00000046 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948126] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff887f7709ca68 RCX: ffff883f7fce2a00 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948128] RDX: 000000000000001c RSI: 0000000000740001 RDI: ffff887f7709ca68 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948129] RBP: 0000000000000002 R08: 0000000000b80000 R09: 0000000000000000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948130] R10: ffff883f7fcc3d78 R11: 000000000de27121 R12: 0000000000000002 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948131] R13: 0000000000000003 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948132] FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff883f7fcc0000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948134] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948135] CR2: 000000c424c77000 CR3: 0000000002010005 CR4: 00000000003606e0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948136] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948137] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948138] Call Trace: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948139] <IRQ> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948142] do_raw_spin_lock+0xad/0xc0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948145] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x44/0x4b >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948149] ? __wake_up_common_lock+0x53/0x90 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948150] __wake_up_common_lock+0x53/0x90 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948155] wbt_done+0x7b/0xa0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948158] blk_mq_free_request+0xb7/0x110 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948161] __blk_mq_complete_request+0xcb/0x140 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948166] nvme_process_cq+0xce/0x1a0 [nvme] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948169] nvme_irq+0x23/0x50 [nvme] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948173] __handle_irq_event_percpu+0x46/0x300 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948176] handle_irq_event_percpu+0x20/0x50 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948179] handle_irq_event+0x34/0x60 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948181] handle_edge_irq+0x77/0x190 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948185] handle_irq+0xaf/0x120 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948188] do_IRQ+0x53/0x110 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948191] common_interrupt+0x87/0x87 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.948192] </IRQ> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> .... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311136] CPU: 4 PID: 9737 Comm: run_linux_amd64 Not tainted 4.14.51-62.38.amzn1.x86_64 #1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311137] Hardware name: Amazon EC2 i3.metal/Not Specified, BIOS 1.0 10/16/2017 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311138] task: ffff883f6e6a8000 task.stack: ffffc9000f1ec000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311141] RIP: 0010:native_queued_spin_lock_slowpath+0xf5/0x1a0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311142] RSP: 0018:ffffc9000f1efa28 EFLAGS: 00000046 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311144] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff887f7709ca68 RCX: ffff883f7f722a00 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311145] RDX: 0000000000000035 RSI: 0000000000d80001 RDI: ffff887f7709ca68 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311146] RBP: 0000000000000202 R08: 0000000000140000 R09: 0000000000000000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311147] R10: ffffc9000f1ef9d8 R11: 000000001a249fa0 R12: ffff887f7709ca68 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311148] R13: ffffc9000f1efad0 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff887f7709ca00 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311149] FS: 000000c423f30090(0000) GS:ffff883f7f700000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311150] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311151] CR2: 00007feefcea4000 CR3: 0000007f7016e001 CR4: 00000000003606e0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311152] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311153] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311154] Call Trace: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311157] do_raw_spin_lock+0xad/0xc0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311160] _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x44/0x4b >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311162] ? prepare_to_wait_exclusive+0x28/0xb0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311164] prepare_to_wait_exclusive+0x28/0xb0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311167] wbt_wait+0x127/0x330 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311169] ? finish_wait+0x80/0x80 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311172] ? generic_make_request+0xda/0x3b0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311174] blk_mq_make_request+0xd6/0x7b0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311176] ? blk_queue_enter+0x24/0x260 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311178] ? generic_make_request+0xda/0x3b0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311181] generic_make_request+0x10c/0x3b0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311183] ? submit_bio+0x5c/0x110 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311185] submit_bio+0x5c/0x110 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311197] ? __ext4_journal_stop+0x36/0xa0 [ext4] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311210] ext4_io_submit+0x48/0x60 [ext4] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311222] ext4_writepages+0x810/0x11f0 [ext4] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311229] ? do_writepages+0x3c/0xd0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311239] ? ext4_mark_inode_dirty+0x260/0x260 [ext4] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311240] do_writepages+0x3c/0xd0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311243] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x24/0x30 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311245] ? wbc_attach_and_unlock_inode+0x165/0x280 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311248] ? __filemap_fdatawrite_range+0xa3/0xe0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311250] __filemap_fdatawrite_range+0xa3/0xe0 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311253] file_write_and_wait_range+0x34/0x90 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311264] ext4_sync_file+0x151/0x500 [ext4] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311267] do_fsync+0x38/0x60 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311270] SyS_fsync+0xc/0x10 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311272] do_syscall_64+0x6f/0x170 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ 0.311274] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x42/0xb7 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the original patch, wbt_done is waking up all the exclusive >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes in the wait queue, which can cause a thundering herd >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if there is a large number of writer threads in the queue. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> original intention of the code seems to be to wake up one thread >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only however, it uses wake_up_all() in __wbt_done(), and then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uses the following check in __wbt_wait to have only one thread >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually get out of the wait loop: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (waitqueue_active(&rqw->wait) && >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rqw->wait.head.next != &wait->entry) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return false; >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with this is that the wait entry in wbt_wait is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> define with DEFINE_WAIT, which uses the autoremove wakeup function. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That means that the above check is invalid - the wait entry will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been removed from the queue already by the time we hit the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check in the loop. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Secondly, auto-removing the wait entries also means that the wait >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> queue essentially gets reordered "randomly" (e.g. threads re-add >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves in the order they got to run after being woken up). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Additionally, new requests entering wbt_wait might overtake requests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that were queued earlier, because the wait queue will be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (temporarily) empty after the wake_up_all, so the waitqueue_active >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check will not stop them. This can cause certain threads to starve >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> under high load. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fix is to leave the woken up requests in the queue and remove >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them in finish_wait() once the current thread breaks out of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wait loop in __wbt_wait. This will ensure new requests always >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> end up at the back of the queue, and they won't overtake requests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that are already in the wait queue. With that change, the loop >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in wbt_wait is also in line with many other wait loops in the kernel. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Waking up just one thread drastically reduces lock contention, as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does moving the wait queue add/remove out of the loop. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A significant drop in lockdep's lock contention numbers is seen when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running the test application on the patched kernel. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I like the patch, and a few weeks ago we independently discovered that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the waitqueue list checking was bogus as well. My only worry is that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changes like this can be delicate, meaning that it's easy to introduce >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stall conditions. What kind of testing did you push this through? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jens Axboe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I ran the following tests on both real HW with NVME devices attached >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and emulated NVME too: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. The test case I used to reproduce the issue, spawns a bunch of threads >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to concurrently read and write files with random size and content. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Files are randomly fsync'd. The implementation is a FIFO queue of files. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the queue fills the test starts to verify and remove the files. This >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test will fail if there's a read, write, or hash check failure. It tests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for file corruption when lots of small files are being read and written >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with high concurrency. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Fio for random writes with a root NVME device of 200GB >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fio --name=randwrite --ioengine=libaio --iodepth=1 --rw=randwrite --bs=4k >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --direct=0 --size=10G --numjobs=2 --runtime=60 --group_reporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fio --name=randwrite --ioengine=libaio --iodepth=1 --rw=randwrite --bs=4k >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --direct=0 --size=5G --numjobs=2 --runtime=30 --fsync=64 --group_reporting >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did see an improvement in the bandwidth numbers reported on the patched >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kernel. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any test case/suite in mind that you would suggest me to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> run to be sure that patch does not introduce any stall conditions? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> One thing that is always useful is to run xfstest, do a full run on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the device. If that works, then do another full run, this time limiting >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the queue depth of the SCSI device to 1. If both of those pass, then >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd feel pretty good getting this applied for 4.19. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you get a chance to run this full test? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jens Axboe >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jens, >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I did run the tests and was in the process of compiling concrete results >>>>>>>>>>>> I tested following environments against xfs/auto group >>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Vanilla 4.18.rc kernel >>>>>>>>>>>> 2. 4.18 kernel with the blk-wbt patch >>>>>>>>>>>> 3. 4.18 kernel with the blk-wbt patch + io_queue_depth=2. I >>>>>>>>>>>> understand you asked for queue depth for SCSI device=1 however, I have NVME >>>>>>>>>>>> devices in my environment and 2 is the minimum value for io_queue_depth allowed >>>>>>>>>>>> according to the NVME driver code. The results pretty much look same with no >>>>>>>>>>>> stalls or exceptional failures. >>>>>>>>>>>> xfs/auto ran 296 odd tests with 3 failures and 130 something "no runs". >>>>>>>>>>>> Remaining tests passed. "Skipped tests" were mostly due to missing features >>>>>>>>>>>> (eg: reflink support on scratch filesystem) >>>>>>>>>>>> The failures were consistent across runs on 3 different environments. >>>>>>>>>>>> I am also running full test suite but it is taking long time as I am >>>>>>>>>>>> hitting kernel BUG in xfs code in some generic tests. This BUG is not >>>>>>>>>>>> related to the patch and I see them in vanilla kernel too. I am in >>>>>>>>>>>> the process of excluding these kind of tests as they come and >>>>>>>>>>>> re-run the suite however, this proces is time taking. >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have any specific tests in mind that you would like me >>>>>>>>>>>> to run apart from what I have already tested above? >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, I think that looks good. I'll get your patch applied for >>>>>>>>>>> 4.19. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Jens Axboe >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Jens, >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for accepting this. There is one small issue, I don't find any emails >>>>>>>>>> send by me on the lkml mailing list. I am not sure why it didn't land there, >>>>>>>>>> all I can see is your responses. Do you want one of us to resend the patch >>>>>>>>>> or will you be able to do it? >>>>>>>>> That's odd, are you getting rejections on your emails? For reference, the >>>>>>>>> patch is here: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/commit/?h=for-4.19/block&id=2887e41b910bb14fd847cf01ab7a5993db989d88 >>>>>>>> One issue with this, as far as I can tell. Right now we've switched to >>>>>>>> waking one task at the time, which is obviously more efficient. But if >>>>>>>> we do that with exclusive waits, then we have to ensure that this task >>>>>>>> makes progress. If we wake up a task, and then fail to get a queueing >>>>>>>> token, then we'll go back to sleep. We need to ensure that someone makes >>>>>>>> forward progress at this point. There are two ways I can see that >>>>>>>> happening: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1) The task woken _always_ gets to queue an IO >>>>>>>> 2) If the task woken is NOT allowed to queue an IO, then it must select >>>>>>>> a new task to wake up. That new task is then subjected to rule 1 or 2 >>>>>>>> as well. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For #1, it could be as simple as: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> if (slept || !rwb_enabled(rwb)) { >>>>>>>> atomic_inc(&rqw->inflight); >>>>>>>> break; >>>>>>>> } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> but this obviously won't always be fair. Might be good enough however, >>>>>>>> instead of having to eg replace the generic wait queues with a priority >>>>>>>> list/queue. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Note that this isn't an entirely new issue, it's just so much easier to >>>>>>>> hit with the single wakeups. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Jens, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is the scenario that you see under which the woken up task does not >>>>>>> get to run? >>>>>> That scenario is pretty easy to hit - let's say the next in line task >>>>>> has a queue limit of 1, and we currently have 4 pending. Task gets >>>>>> woken, goes back to sleep. Which should be totally fine. At some point >>>>>> we'll get below the limit, and allow the task to proceed. This will >>>>>> ensure forward progress. >>>>>> >>>>>>> The theory behind leaving the task on the wait queue is that the >>>>>>> waitqueue_active check in wbt_wait prevents new tasks from taking up a >>>>>>> slot in the queue (e.g. incrementing inflight). So, there should not be >>>>>>> a way for inflight to be incremented between the time the wake_up is >>>>>>> done and the task at the head of the wait queue runs. That's the idea >>>>>>> anyway :-) If we missed something, let us know. >>>>>> And that's a fine theory, I think it's a good improvement (and how it >>>>>> should have worked). I'm struggling to see where the issue is. Perhaps >>>>>> it's related to the wq active check. With fewer wakeups, we're more >>>>>> likely to hit a race there. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll poke at it... >>>>> Trying something like this: >>>>> >>>>> http://git.kernel.dk/cgit/linux-block/log/?h=for-4.19/wbt >>>>> >>>> Ah, now I see what you mean. >>>> >>>> This is the case where a task goes to sleep, not because the inflight >>>> limit has been reached, but simply because it needs to go to the back of >>>> the wait queue. >>>> >>>> In that case, it should, for its first time inside the loop, not try to >>>> decrement inflight - since that means it could still race to overtake a >>>> task that got there earlier and is in the wait queue. >>>> >>>> So what you are doing is keeping track of whether it got in to the loop >>>> only because of queueing, and then you don't try to decrement inflight >>>> the first time around the loop. >>>> >>>> I think that should work to fix that corner case. >>> >>> I hope so, got tests running now and we'll see... >>> >>> Outside of that, getting the matching memory barrier for the wq check >>> could also fix a race on the completion side. >>> >> >> I thought all the wait_* and set_current_* and atomic_* had implicit barriers. >> Are you referring to the rwb->wb_* values we consume on the completion side? > > Not waitqueue_active(), which is the one I was referring to. The additional > helper wq_has_sleeper() does. > >> I was initially concerned about not dequeuing the task, but noticed that >> wake_up_common seems to handle that well. I looked for sources of missed wake >> up as well, notifying the same task twice and missing wakeups, but could >> not hit it. > > It's better not to dequeue, since we want the task to stay at the head. > So I think all that makes sense, yet I can't find where it would be > missing either. The missing barrier _could_ explain it, especially > since the risk of hitting it should be higher now with single wakeups. > >> FYI: We ran lock contention and the waitqueue showed up as having the >> largest contention, which disappeared after this patch. > > Yeah, it's a good change for sure, we don't want everybody to wakeup, > and then hammer on the lock both on wq removal and then again for > most of them going back to sleep. OK, I think I see it. The problem is that if a task gets woken up and doesn't get to queue anything, it goes back to sleep. But the default wake function has already removed it from the wait queue... So once that happens, we're dead in the water. The problem isn't that we're now more likely to hit the deadlock with the above change, it's that the above change introduced this deadlock. I'm testing a fix. -- Jens Axboe
