Ulf,
While this patch might be correct, it's not solving the problem I
claimed and my explanation was wrong. See comments in this code
review:
https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/170880/1//COMMIT_MSG
While I no longer see the same crash with this change in our "ToT
tree", I'm able to reproduce the original mmcqd crash on a different
kernel variant (also based on chromeos-3.4 kernel).
I think I need to review references to mqrq_prev and mqrq_cur since
those appear to be protected by mq->thread_sem and I suspect
references are happening from dw_mmc tasklet without holding this
semaphore.
apologies,
grant
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Grant Grundler <grundler@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Races between host->areq being NULL or not are resulting in mmcqd
> hung_task panics. Like this one:
>
> <3>[ 240.501202] INFO: task mmcqd/1:85 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
> <3>[ 240.501213] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> <6>[ 240.501223] mmcqd/1 D 80528020 0 85 2 0x00000000
> <5>[ 240.501254] [<80528020>] (__schedule+0x614/0x780) from [<80528550>] (schedule+0x94/0x98)
> <5>[ 240.501269] [<80528550>] (schedule+0x94/0x98) from [<80526270>] (schedule_timeout+0x38/0x2d0)
> <5>[ 240.501284] [<80526270>] (schedule_timeout+0x38/0x2d0) from [<805283a4>] (wait_for_common+0x164/0x1a0)
> <5>[ 240.501298] [<805283a4>] (wait_for_common+0x164/0x1a0) from [<805284b8>] (wait_for_completion+0x20/0x24)
> <5>[ 240.501313] [<805284b8>] (wait_for_completion+0x20/0x24) from [<803d7068>] (mmc_wait_for_req_done+0x2c/0x84)
> <5>[ 240.501327] [<803d7068>] (mmc_wait_for_req_done+0x2c/0x84) from [<803d81c0>] (mmc_start_req+0x60/0x120)
> <5>[ 240.501342] [<803d81c0>] (mmc_start_req+0x60/0x120) from [<803e402c>] (mmc_blk_issue_rw_rq+0xa0/0x3a8)
> <5>[ 240.501355] [<803e402c>] (mmc_blk_issue_rw_rq+0xa0/0x3a8) from [<803e4758>] (mmc_blk_issue_rq+0x424/0x478)
> <5>[ 240.501368] [<803e4758>] (mmc_blk_issue_rq+0x424/0x478) from [<803e587c>] (mmc_queue_thread+0xb0/0x118)
> <5>[ 240.501382] [<803e587c>] (mmc_queue_thread+0xb0/0x118) from [<8004d61c>] (kthread+0xa8/0xbc)
> <5>[ 240.501396] [<8004d61c>] (kthread+0xa8/0xbc) from [<8000f1c8>] (kernel_thread_exit+0x0/0x8)
> <0>[ 240.501407] Kernel panic - not syncing: hung_task: blocked tasks
> <5>[ 240.501421] [<800150a4>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0x114) from [<80521920>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24)
> <5>[ 240.501434] [<80521920>] (dump_stack+0x20/0x24) from [<80521a90>] (panic+0xa8/0x1f4)
> <5>[ 240.501447] [<80521a90>] (panic+0xa8/0x1f4) from [<80086d3c>] (watchdog+0x1f4/0x25c)
> <5>[ 240.501459] [<80086d3c>] (watchdog+0x1f4/0x25c) from [<8004d61c>] (kthread+0xa8/0xbc)
> <5>[ 240.501471] [<8004d61c>] (kthread+0xa8/0xbc) from [<8000f1c8>] (kernel_thread_exit+0x0/0x8)
>
> I was able to reproduce the mmcqd "hung task" timeout consistently
> with this fio command line on an Exynos5250 system with Toshiba HS200
> eMMC running in HS200 mode:
> fio --name=short_randwrite --size=2G --time_based --runtime=3m \
> --readwrite=randwrite --numjobs=2 --bs=4k --norandommap \
> --ioengine=psync --direct=0 --filename=/dev/mmcblk0p5
>
> I believe the key parameters are "--numjobs=2" (or more) and "randwrite"
> workload. Then the completions are happening around the same time as
> mmc_start_req() is referencing and/or updating host->areq.
>
> I was NOT able to consistently reproduce the problem on a similar
> Exynos 5250 system which had "engineering samples" of Samsung HS200
> capable eMMC installed. Just my clue that the timing is different
> (and the fio performance numbers are different too).
>
> Signed-off-by: Grant Grundler <grundler@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/mmc/core/core.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> index 36cfe91..e5a9599 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/core.c
> @@ -529,29 +529,40 @@ struct mmc_async_req *mmc_start_req(struct mmc_host *host,
> {
> int saved_err = 0;
> int start_err = 0;
> - struct mmc_async_req *saved_areq = host->areq;
> + struct mmc_async_req *saved_areq;
> + unsigned long flags;
>
> - if (!saved_areq && !areq)
> - /* Nothing to do...some code is polling. */
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags);
> + saved_areq = host->areq;
> + if (!saved_areq && !areq) {
> + /* Nothing? Code is racing to harvest a completion. */
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags);
> goto set_error;
> + }
>
> /* Prepare a new request */
> if (areq)
> mmc_pre_req(host, areq->mrq, !saved_areq);
>
> if (saved_areq) {
> + /* This thread owns this IO (saved_areq) for now. */
> + host->areq = NULL;
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags);
> +
> saved_err = mmc_wait_for_data_req_done(host, saved_areq->mrq, areq);
> if (saved_err == MMC_BLK_NEW_REQUEST) {
> - /*
> - * The previous request was not completed,
> - * nothing to return
> - */
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&host->lock, flags);
> + BUG_ON(host->areq != NULL);
> +
> + /* Not completed. Don't report it. */
> + host->areq = saved_areq;
> saved_areq = NULL;
> + saved_err = 0;
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&host->lock, flags);
> goto set_error;
> }
> - /*
> - * Check BKOPS urgency for each R1 response
> - */
> +
> + /* Check BKOPS urgency for each R1 response */
> if (host->card && mmc_card_mmc(host->card) &&
> ((mmc_resp_type(saved_areq->mrq->cmd) == MMC_RSP_R1) ||
> (mmc_resp_type(saved_areq->mrq->cmd) == MMC_RSP_R1B)) &&
> @@ -562,11 +573,12 @@ struct mmc_async_req *mmc_start_req(struct mmc_host *host,
> /* Don't start something new if previous one failed. */
> if (!saved_err && areq) {
> start_err = __mmc_start_data_req(host, areq->mrq);
> +
> /* Cancel a prepared request if it was not started. */
> if (start_err) {
> mmc_post_req(host, areq->mrq, -EINVAL);
> host->areq = NULL;
> - } else
> + } else
> host->areq = areq;
> }
>
> --
> 1.8.4
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
