On Wed, Apr 08, 2020 at 08:04:01AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> If ever a thread running blk-mq code tries to get budget and fails it
> immediately stops doing work and assumes that whenever budget is freed
> up that queues will be kicked and whatever work the thread was trying
> to do will be tried again.
>
> One path where budget is freed and queues are kicked in the normal
> case can be seen in scsi_finish_command(). Specifically:
> - scsi_finish_command()
> - scsi_device_unbusy()
> - # Decrement "device_busy", AKA release budget
> - scsi_io_completion()
> - scsi_end_request()
> - blk_mq_run_hw_queues()
>
> The above is all well and good. The problem comes up when a thread
> claims the budget but then releases it without actually dispatching
> any work. Since we didn't schedule any work we'll never run the path
> of finishing work / kicking the queues.
>
> This isn't often actually a problem which is why this issue has
> existed for a while and nobody noticed. Specifically we only get into
> this situation when we unexpectedly found that we weren't going to do
> any work. Code that later receives new work kicks the queues. All
> good, right?
>
> The problem shows up, however, if timing is just wrong and we hit a
> race. To see this race let's think about the case where we only have
> a budget of 1 (only one thread can hold budget). Now imagine that a
> thread got budget and then decided not to dispatch work. It's about
> to call put_budget() but then the thread gets context switched out for
> a long, long time. While in this state, any and all kicks of the
> queue (like the when we received new work) will be no-ops because
> nobody can get budget. Finally the thread holding budget gets to run
> again and returns. All the normal kicks will have been no-ops and we
> have an I/O stall.
>
> As you can see from the above, you need just the right timing to see
> the race. To start with, the only case it happens if we thought we
> had work, actually managed to get the budget, but then actually didn't
> have work. That's pretty rare to start with. Even then, there's
> usually a very small amount of time between realizing that there's no
> work and putting the budget. During this small amount of time new
> work has to come in and the queue kick has to make it all the way to
> trying to get the budget and fail. It's pretty unlikely.
>
> One case where this could have failed is illustrated by an example of
> threads running blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched():
>
> * Threads A and B both run has_work() at the same time with the same
> "hctx". Imagine has_work() is exact. There's no lock, so it's OK
> if Thread A and B both get back true.
> * Thread B gets interrupted for a long time right after it decides
> that there is work. Maybe its CPU gets an interrupt and the
> interrupt handler is slow.
> * Thread A runs, get budget, dispatches work.
> * Thread A's work finishes and budget is released.
> * Thread B finally runs again and gets budget.
> * Since Thread A already took care of the work and no new work has
> come in, Thread B will get NULL from dispatch_request(). I believe
> this is specifically why dispatch_request() is allowed to return
> NULL in the first place if has_work() must be exact.
> * Thread B will now be holding the budget and is about to call
> put_budget(), but hasn't called it yet.
> * Thread B gets interrupted for a long time (again). Dang interrupts.
> * Now Thread C (maybe with a different "hctx" but the same queue)
> comes along and runs blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched().
> * Thread C won't do anything because it can't get budget.
> * Finally Thread B will run again and put the budget without kicking
> any queues.
>
> Even though the example above is with blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched() I
> believe the race is possible any time someone is holding budget but
> doesn't do work.
>
> Unfortunately, the unlikely has become more likely if you happen to be
> using the BFQ I/O scheduler. BFQ, by design, sometimes returns "true"
> for has_work() but then NULL for dispatch_request() and stays in this
> state for a while (currently up to 9 ms). Suddenly you only need one
> race to hit, not two races in a row. With my current setup this is
> easy to reproduce in reboot tests and traces have actually shown that
> we hit a race similar to the one described above.
>
> Note that we only need to fix blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched() and
> blk_mq_do_dispatch_ctx() and not the other places that put budget. In
> other cases we know that we have work to do on at least one "hctx" and
> code already exists to kick that "hctx"'s queue. When that work
> finally finishes all the queues will be kicked using the normal flow.
>
> One last note is that (at least in the SCSI case) budget is shared by
> all "hctx"s that have the same queue. Thus we need to make sure to
> kick the whole queue, not just re-run dispatching on a single "hctx".
>
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> Changes in v4:
> - Only kick in blk_mq_do_dispatch_ctx() / blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched().
>
> Changes in v3:
> - Always kick when putting the budget.
> - Delay blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched() kick by 3 ms for inexact has_work().
> - Totally rewrote commit message.
>
> Changes in v2:
> - Replace ("scsi: core: Fix stall...") w/ ("blk-mq: Rerun dispatch...")
>
> block/blk-mq-sched.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-mq-sched.c b/block/blk-mq-sched.c
> index 74cedea56034..eca81bd4010c 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq-sched.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq-sched.c
> @@ -80,6 +80,8 @@ void blk_mq_sched_restart(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> blk_mq_run_hw_queue(hctx, true);
> }
>
> +#define BLK_MQ_BUDGET_DELAY 3 /* ms units */
> +
> /*
> * Only SCSI implements .get_budget and .put_budget, and SCSI restarts
> * its queue by itself in its completion handler, so we don't need to
> @@ -103,6 +105,14 @@ static void blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> rq = e->type->ops.dispatch_request(hctx);
> if (!rq) {
> blk_mq_put_dispatch_budget(hctx);
> + /*
> + * We're releasing without dispatching. Holding the
> + * budget could have blocked any "hctx"s with the
> + * same queue and if we didn't dispatch then there's
> + * no guarantee anyone will kick the queue. Kick it
> + * ourselves.
> + */
> + blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queues(q, BLK_MQ_BUDGET_DELAY);
> break;
> }
>
> @@ -149,6 +159,14 @@ static void blk_mq_do_dispatch_ctx(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> rq = blk_mq_dequeue_from_ctx(hctx, ctx);
> if (!rq) {
> blk_mq_put_dispatch_budget(hctx);
> + /*
> + * We're releasing without dispatching. Holding the
> + * budget could have blocked any "hctx"s with the
> + * same queue and if we didn't dispatch then there's
> + * no guarantee anyone will kick the queue. Kick it
> + * ourselves.
> + */
> + blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queues(q, BLK_MQ_BUDGET_DELAY);
> break;
> }
>
> --
> 2.26.0.292.g33ef6b2f38-goog
>
Reviewed-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
Ming
