On Tue, 2021-11-02 at 08:41 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/2/21 8:36 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 11/2/21 8:33 AM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2021-11-02 at 06:59 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > On 11/1/21 7:43 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, 2021-10-21 at 22:59 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > > > For fixing queue quiesce race between driver and block
> > > > > > layer(elevator switch, update nr_requests, ...), we need to
> > > > > > support concurrent quiesce and unquiesce, which requires
> > > > > > the two
> > > > > > call balanced.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It isn't easy to audit that in all scsi drivers, especially
> > > > > > the two may be called from different contexts, so do it in
> > > > > > scsi core with one per-device bit flag & global spinlock,
> > > > > > basically zero cost since request queue quiesce is seldom
> > > > > > triggered.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Reported-by: Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Fixes: e70feb8b3e68 ("blk-mq: support concurrent queue
> > > > > > quiesce/unquiesce")
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c | 45
> > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > ----
> > > > > > include/scsi/scsi_device.h | 1 +
> > > > > > 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> > > > > > b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> > > > > > index 51fcd46be265..414f4daf8005 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> > > > > > @@ -2638,6 +2638,40 @@ static int
> > > > > > __scsi_internal_device_block_nowait(struct scsi_device
> > > > > > *sdev)
> > > > > > return 0;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(sdev_queue_stop_lock);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +void scsi_start_queue(struct scsi_device *sdev)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + bool need_start;
> > > > > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&sdev_queue_stop_lock, flags);
> > > > > > + need_start = sdev->queue_stopped;
> > > > > > + sdev->queue_stopped = 0;
> > > > > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sdev_queue_stop_lock, flags);
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + if (need_start)
> > > > > > + blk_mq_unquiesce_queue(sdev->request_queue);
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, this is a classic atomic pattern:
> > > > >
> > > > > if (cmpxchg(&sdev->queue_stopped, 1, 0))
> > > > > blk_mq_unquiesce_queue(sdev->request_queue);
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason to do it with atomics rather than spinlocks is
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. no need to disable interrupts: atomics are locked
> > > > > 2. faster because a spinlock takes an exclusive line every
> > > > > time but the
> > > > > read to check the value can be in shared mode in
> > > > > cmpxchg
> > > > > 3. it's just shorter and better code.
> > > > >
> > > > > The only minor downside is queue_stopped now needs to be a
> > > > > u32.
> > > >
> > > > Are you fine with the change as-is, or do you want it redone? I
> > > > can drop the SCSI parts and just queue up the dm fix.
> > > > Personally I think it'd be better to get it fixed upfront.
> > >
> > > Well, given the path isn't hot, I don't really care. However,
> > > what I don't want is to have to continually bat back patches from
> > > the make work code churners trying to update this code for being
> > > the wrong pattern. I think at the very least it needs a comment
> > > saying why we chose a suboptimal pattern to try to forestall
> > > this.
> >
> > Right, with a comment it's probably better. And as you said, since
> > it's not a hot path, don't think we'd be revisiting it anyway.
> >
> > I'll amend the patch with a comment.
>
> I started adding the comment and took another look at this, and that
> made me change my mind. We really should make this a cmpxcgh, it's
> not even using a device lock here.
>
> I've dropped the two SCSI patches for now, Ming can you resend? If
> James agrees, I really think queue_stopped should just have the type
> changed and the patch redone with that using cmpxcgh().
Well, that's what I suggested originally, so I agree ... I don't think
31 more bytes is going to be a huge burden to scsi_device.
James
