On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 09:28:06AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 1/18/19 9:21 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 05:58:18AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> On 1/14/19 12:21 PM, Liu Bo wrote: > >>> Our test reported the following stack, and vmcore showed that > >>> ->inflight counter is -1. > >>> > >>> [ffffc9003fcc38d0] __schedule at ffffffff8173d95d > >>> [ffffc9003fcc3958] schedule at ffffffff8173de26 > >>> [ffffc9003fcc3970] io_schedule at ffffffff810bb6b6 > >>> [ffffc9003fcc3988] blkcg_iolatency_throttle at ffffffff813911cb > >>> [ffffc9003fcc3a20] rq_qos_throttle at ffffffff813847f3 > >>> [ffffc9003fcc3a48] blk_mq_make_request at ffffffff8137468a > >>> [ffffc9003fcc3b08] generic_make_request at ffffffff81368b49 > >>> [ffffc9003fcc3b68] submit_bio at ffffffff81368d7d > >>> [ffffc9003fcc3bb8] ext4_io_submit at ffffffffa031be00 [ext4] > >>> [ffffc9003fcc3c00] ext4_writepages at ffffffffa03163de [ext4] > >>> [ffffc9003fcc3d68] do_writepages at ffffffff811c49ae > >>> [ffffc9003fcc3d78] __filemap_fdatawrite_range at ffffffff811b6188 > >>> [ffffc9003fcc3e30] filemap_write_and_wait_range at ffffffff811b6301 > >>> [ffffc9003fcc3e60] ext4_sync_file at ffffffffa030cee8 [ext4] > >>> [ffffc9003fcc3ea8] vfs_fsync_range at ffffffff8128594b > >>> [ffffc9003fcc3ee8] do_fsync at ffffffff81285abd > >>> [ffffc9003fcc3f18] sys_fsync at ffffffff81285d50 > >>> [ffffc9003fcc3f28] do_syscall_64 at ffffffff81003c04 > >>> [ffffc9003fcc3f50] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_swapgs at ffffffff81742b8e > >>> > >>> The ->inflight counter may be negative (-1) if > >>> > >>> 0) blk-throttle had been enabled when the IO was issued, so its bio > >>> has a associated blkg, > >>> > >>> 1) blk-iolatency was disabled when the IO was issued, so iolatency_grp > >>> in this blkg was not available by then, > >>> > >>> 2) blk-iolatency was enabled before this IO reached its endio, so that > >>> iolatency_grp became available when the IO did the endio. > >>> > >>> 3) the ->inflight counter is decreased from 0 to -1. > >>> > >>> This uses atomic_dec_is_positive() instead to avoid the negative > >>> inflight counter. > >> > >> The problem with that is that it'll hide a lot of other issues, too. > >> Any way we can either track if this rqw is in flight, and only dec > >> if it is, or quiesce when enabling? > >> > > > > I worried about this too, but really the side-effect of allowing more through > > because of mis-counting means we just let more IO through. I think maybe we add > > a debug option that we can turn on to see if we're messing up accounting, but in > > general I don't see a problem with this approach. > > The problem is that a problem in accounting elsewhere (like missing increment) > will now go unnoticed, which could completely screw it up. An occasional > blip like the one described is totally fine, but that's not guaranteed to be > the case. > Yeah I agree it's kind of shitty. > > The problem we're running into here is there's not really a good way to tag a > > bio as "seen by io.latency." We just have to assume if we're on and there's a > > bi_blkg associated that we saw it at submit time. We can't just add a flag for > > every io controller that starts tracking inflight io's, so for now I think this > > is a reasonable solution. Thanks, > > Can we quiesce instead when enabling/disabling? Actually that's not a bad idea, you want to look into that Liu? That way we can make sure everything is correct always. Thanks, Josef
