On Mar 10, 2022 / 05:47, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 3/10/22 5:40 AM, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> > On Mar 10, 2022 / 18:00, Ming Lei wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 09:16:50AM +0000, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> >>> This issue does not look critical, but let me share it to ask comments for fix.
> >>>
> >>> When fio command with 40 jobs [1] is run for a null_blk device with memory
> >>> backing and mq-deadline scheduler, kernel reports a BUG message [2]. The
> >>> workqueue watchdog reports that kblockd blk_mq_run_work_fn keeps on running
> >>> more than 30 seconds and other work can not run. The 40 fio jobs keep on
> >>> creating many read requests to a single null_blk device, then the every time
> >>> the mq_run task calls __blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(), it returns ret == 1 which
> >>> means more than one request was dispatched. Hence, the while loop in
> >>> blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched() does not break.
> >>>
> >>> static int blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> >>> {
> >>> int ret;
> >>>
> >>> do {
> >>> ret = __blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(hctx);
> >>> } while (ret == 1);
> >>>
> >>> return ret;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> The BUG message was observed when I ran blktests block/005 with various
> >>> conditions on a system with 40 CPUs. It was observed with kernel version
> >>> v5.16-rc1 through v5.17-rc7. The trigger commit was 0a593fbbc245 ("null_blk:
> >>> poll queue support"). This commit added blk_mq_ops.map_queues callback. I
> >>> guess it changed dispatch behavior for null_blk devices and triggered the
> >>> BUG message.
> >>
> >> It is one blk-mq soft lockup issue in dispatch side, and shouldn't be related
> >> with 0a593fbbc245.
> >>
> >> If queueing requests is faster than dispatching, the issue will be triggered
> >> sooner or later, especially easy to trigger in SQ device. I am sure it can
> >> be triggered on scsi debug, even saw such report on ahci.
> >
> > Thank you for the comments. Then this is the real problem.
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I'm not so sure if we really need to fix this issue. It does not seem the real
> >>> world problem since it is observed only with null_blk. The real block devices
> >>> have slower IO operation then the dispatch should stop sooner when the hardware
> >>> queue gets full. Also the 40 jobs for single device is not realistic workload.
> >>>
> >>> Having said that, it does not feel right that other works are pended during
> >>> dispatch for null_blk devices. To avoid the BUG message, I can think of two
> >>> fix approaches. First one is to break the while loop in blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched
> >>> using a loop counter [3] (or jiffies timeout check).
> >>
> >> This way could work, but the queue need to be re-run after breaking
> >> caused by max dispatch number. cond_resched() might be the simplest way,
> >> but it can't be used here because of rcu/srcu read lock.
> >
> > As far as I understand, blk_mq_run_work_fn() should return after the loop break
> > to yield the worker to other works. How about to call
> > blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue() at the loop break? Does this re-run the dispatch?
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/block/blk-mq-sched.c b/block/blk-mq-sched.c
> > index 55488ba978232..faa29448a72a0 100644
> > --- a/block/blk-mq-sched.c
> > +++ b/block/blk-mq-sched.c
> > @@ -178,13 +178,19 @@ static int __blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> > return !!dispatched;
> > }
> >
> > +#define MQ_DISPATCH_MAX 0x10000
> > +
> > static int blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> > {
> > int ret;
> > + unsigned int count = MQ_DISPATCH_MAX;
> >
> > do {
> > ret = __blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(hctx);
> > - } while (ret == 1);
> > + } while (ret == 1 && count--);
> > +
> > + if (ret == 1 && !count)
> > + blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue(hctx, 0);
> >
> > return ret;
> > }
>
> Why not just gate it on needing to reschedule, rather than some random
> value?
>
> static int blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> {
> int ret;
>
> do {
> ret = __blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(hctx);
> } while (ret == 1 && !need_resched());
>
> if (ret == 1 && need_resched())
> blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue(hctx, 0);
>
> return ret;
> }
>
> or something like that.
Jens, thanks for the idea, but need_resched() check does not look working here.
I tried the code above but still the BUG message is observed. My guess is that
in the call stack below, every __blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched() call results in
might_sleep_if() call, then need_resched() does not work as expected, probably.
__blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched
blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list
q->mq_ops->queue_rq
null_queue_rq
might_sleep_if
Now I'm trying to find similar way as need_resched() to avoid the random number.
So far I haven't found good idea yet.
--
Best Regards,
Shin'ichiro Kawasaki
