> On Aug 23, 2022, at 4:09 AM, Leon Romanovsky <leon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 11:30:20AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>> While setting up a new lab, I accidentally misconfigured the
>> Ethernet port for a system that tried an NFS mount using RoCE.
>> This made the NFS server unreachable. The following WARNING
>> popped on the NFS client while waiting for the mount attempt to
>> time out:
>>
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: workqueue: WQ_MEM_RECLAIM xprtiod:xprt_rdma_connect_worker [rpcrdma] is flushing !WQ_MEM_RECLAI>
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 100 at kernel/workqueue.c:2628 check_flush_dependency+0xbf/0xca
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: Modules linked in: rpcsec_gss_krb5 nfsv4 dns_resolver nfs 8021q garp stp mrp llc rfkill rpcrdma>
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: CPU: 0 PID: 100 Comm: kworker/u8:8 Not tainted 6.0.0-rc1-00002-g6229f8c054e5 #13
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: Hardware name: Supermicro X10SRA-F/X10SRA-F, BIOS 2.0b 06/12/2017
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: Workqueue: xprtiod xprt_rdma_connect_worker [rpcrdma]
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: RIP: 0010:check_flush_dependency+0xbf/0xca
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: Code: 75 2a 48 8b 55 18 48 8d 8b b0 00 00 00 4d 89 e0 48 81 c6 b0 00 00 00 48 c7 c7 65 33 2e be>
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: RSP: 0018:ffffb562806cfcf8 EFLAGS: 00010092
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: RAX: 0000000000000082 RBX: ffff97894f8c3c00 RCX: 0000000000000027
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: RDX: 0000000000000002 RSI: ffffffffbe3447d1 RDI: 00000000ffffffff
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: RBP: ffff978941315840 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: R10: 00000000000008b0 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: ffffffffc0ce3731
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: R13: ffff978950c00500 R14: ffff97894341f0c0 R15: ffff978951112eb0
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff97987fc00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: CR2: 00007f807535eae8 CR3: 000000010b8e4002 CR4: 00000000003706f0
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: Call Trace:
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: <TASK>
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: __flush_work.isra.0+0xaf/0x188
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: ? _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x2c/0x37
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: ? lock_timer_base+0x38/0x5f
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: __cancel_work_timer+0xea/0x13d
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: ? preempt_latency_start+0x2b/0x46
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: rdma_addr_cancel+0x70/0x81 [ib_core]
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: _destroy_id+0x1a/0x246 [rdma_cm]
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: rpcrdma_xprt_connect+0x115/0x5ae [rpcrdma]
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x14/0x29
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: ? raw_spin_rq_unlock_irq+0x5/0x10
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: ? finish_task_switch.isra.0+0x171/0x249
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: xprt_rdma_connect_worker+0x3b/0xc7 [rpcrdma]
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: process_one_work+0x1d8/0x2d4
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: worker_thread+0x18b/0x24f
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: ? rescuer_thread+0x280/0x280
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: kthread+0xf4/0xfc
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x1b/0x1b
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
>> Aug 20 17:12:05 bazille kernel: </TASK>
>>
>> The xprtiod work queue is WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, so any work queue that
>> one of its work items tries to cancel has to be WQ_MEM_RECLAIM to
>> prevent a priority inversion.
>
> But why do you have WQ_MEM_RECLAIM in xprtiod?
Because RPC is under a filesystem (NFS). Therefore it has to handle
writeback demanded by direct reclaim. All of the storage ULPs have
this constraint, in fact.
> 1270 wq = alloc_workqueue("xprtiod", WQ_UNBOUND | WQ_MEM_RECLAIM, 0);
>
> IMHO, It will be nicer if we remove WQ_MEM_RECLAIM instead of adding it.
>
> Thanks
>
>>
>> Suggested-by: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/infiniband/core/addr.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/addr.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/addr.c
>> index f253295795f0..5c36d01ebf0b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/addr.c
>> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/addr.c
>> @@ -872,7 +872,7 @@ static struct notifier_block nb = {
>>
>> int addr_init(void)
>> {
>> - addr_wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue("ib_addr", 0);
>> + addr_wq = alloc_ordered_workqueue("ib_addr", WQ_MEM_RECLAIM);
>> if (!addr_wq)
>> return -ENOMEM;
--
Chuck Lever
