Hi,
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 7:58 PM Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 07:15:54PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 6:41 PM Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 07:49:06AM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > > > It is possible for two threads to be running
> > > > blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched() at the same time with the same "hctx".
> > > > This is because there can be more than one caller to
> > > > __blk_mq_run_hw_queue() with the same "hctx" and hctx_lock() doesn't
> > > > prevent more than one thread from entering.
> > > >
> > > > If more than one thread is running blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched() at the
> > > > same time with the same "hctx", they may have contention acquiring
> > > > budget. The blk_mq_get_dispatch_budget() can eventually translate
> > > > into scsi_mq_get_budget(). If the device's "queue_depth" is 1 (not
> > > > uncommon) then only one of the two threads will be the one to
> > > > increment "device_busy" to 1 and get the budget.
> > > >
> > > > The losing thread will break out of blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched() and
> > > > will stop dispatching requests. The assumption is that when more
> > > > budget is available later (when existing transactions finish) the
> > > > queue will be kicked again, perhaps in scsi_end_request().
> > > >
> > > > The winning thread now has budget and can go on to call
> > > > dispatch_request(). If dispatch_request() returns NULL here then we
> > > > have a potential problem. Specifically we'll now call
> > >
> > > I guess this problem should be BFQ specific. Now there is definitely
> > > requests in BFQ queue wrt. this hctx. However, looks this request is
> > > only available from another loser thread, and it won't be retrieved in
> > > the winning thread via e->type->ops.dispatch_request().
> > >
> > > Just wondering why BFQ is implemented in this way?
> >
> > Paolo can maybe comment why.
> >
> > ...but even if BFQ wanted to try to change this, I think it's
> > impossible to fully close the race. There is no locking between the
> > call to has_work() and dispatch_request() and there can be two (or
> > more) threads running the code at the same time. Without some type of
> > locking I think it will always be possible for dispatch_request() to
> > return NULL. Are we OK with code that works most of the time but
> > still has a race? ...or did I misunderstand how this all works?
>
> Wrt. dispatching requests from hctx->dispatch, there is really one
> race given scsi's run queue from scsi_end_request() may not see
> that request. Looks that is what the patch 1 is addressing.
OK, at least I got something right. ;-)
> However, for this issue, there isn't race, given when we get budget,
> the request isn't dequeued from BFQ yet. If budget is assigned
> successfully, either the request is dispatched to LLD successfully,
> or STS_RESOURCE is triggered, or running out of driver tag, run queue
> is guaranteed to be started for handling another dispatch path
> which running out of budget.
>
> That is why I raise the question why BFQ dispatches request in this way.
Ah, I _think_ I see what you mean. So there should be no race because
the "has_work" is just a hint? It's assumed that whichever task gets
the budget will be able to dispatch all the work that's there. Is
that right?
> > > > blk_mq_put_dispatch_budget() which translates into
> > > > scsi_mq_put_budget(). That will mark the device as no longer busy but
> > > > doesn't do anything to kick the queue. This violates the assumption
> > > > that the queue would be kicked when more budget was available.
> > > >
> > > > Pictorially:
> > > >
> > > > Thread A Thread B
> > > > ================================= ==================================
> > > > blk_mq_get_dispatch_budget() => 1
> > > > dispatch_request() => NULL
> > > > blk_mq_get_dispatch_budget() => 0
> > > > // because Thread A marked
> > > > // "device_busy" in scsi_device
> > > > blk_mq_put_dispatch_budget()
> > > >
> > > > The above case was observed in reboot tests and caused a task to hang
> > > > forever waiting for IO to complete. Traces showed that in fact two
> > > > tasks were running blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched() at the same time with
> > > > the same "hctx". The task that got the budget did in fact see
> > > > dispatch_request() return NULL. Both tasks returned and the system
> > > > went on for several minutes (until the hung task delay kicked in)
> > > > without the given "hctx" showing up again in traces.
> > > >
> > > > Let's attempt to fix this problem by detecting budget contention. If
> > > > we're in the SCSI code's put_budget() function and we saw that someone
> > > > else might have wanted the budget we got then we'll kick the queue.
> > > >
> > > > The mechanism of kicking due to budget contention has the potential to
> > > > overcompensate and kick the queue more than strictly necessary, but it
> > > > shouldn't hurt.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> > > > drivers/scsi/scsi_scan.c | 1 +
> > > > include/scsi/scsi_device.h | 2 ++
> > > > 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> > > > index 610ee41fa54c..0530da909995 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> > > > @@ -344,6 +344,21 @@ static void scsi_dec_host_busy(struct Scsi_Host *shost, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
> > > > rcu_read_unlock();
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static void scsi_device_dec_busy(struct scsi_device *sdev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + bool was_contention;
> > > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > > +
> > > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&sdev->budget_lock, flags);
> > > > + atomic_dec(&sdev->device_busy);
> > > > + was_contention = sdev->budget_contention;
> > > > + sdev->budget_contention = false;
> > > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sdev->budget_lock, flags);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (was_contention)
> > > > + blk_mq_run_hw_queues(sdev->request_queue, true);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > void scsi_device_unbusy(struct scsi_device *sdev, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
> > > > {
> > > > struct Scsi_Host *shost = sdev->host;
> > > > @@ -354,7 +369,7 @@ void scsi_device_unbusy(struct scsi_device *sdev, struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
> > > > if (starget->can_queue > 0)
> > > > atomic_dec(&starget->target_busy);
> > > >
> > > > - atomic_dec(&sdev->device_busy);
> > > > + scsi_device_dec_busy(sdev);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static void scsi_kick_queue(struct request_queue *q)
> > > > @@ -1624,16 +1639,22 @@ static void scsi_mq_put_budget(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> > > > struct request_queue *q = hctx->queue;
> > > > struct scsi_device *sdev = q->queuedata;
> > > >
> > > > - atomic_dec(&sdev->device_busy);
> > > > + scsi_device_dec_busy(sdev);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > static bool scsi_mq_get_budget(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> > > > {
> > > > struct request_queue *q = hctx->queue;
> > > > struct scsi_device *sdev = q->queuedata;
> > > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > >
> > > > - if (scsi_dev_queue_ready(q, sdev))
> > > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&sdev->budget_lock, flags);
> > > > + if (scsi_dev_queue_ready(q, sdev)) {
> > > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sdev->budget_lock, flags);
> > > > return true;
> > > > + }
> > > > + sdev->budget_contention = true;
> > > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sdev->budget_lock, flags);
> > >
> > > No, it really hurts performance by adding one per-sdev spinlock in fast path,
> > > and we actually tried to kill the atomic variable of 'sdev->device_busy'
> > > for high performance HBA.
> >
> > It might be slow, but correctness trumps speed, right? I tried to do
>
> Correctness doesn't have to cause performance regression, does it?
I guess what I'm saying is that if there is a choice between the two
we have to choose correctness. If there is a bug and we don't know of
any way to fix it other than with a fix that regresses performance
then we have to regress performance. I wasn't able to find a way to
fix the bug (as I understood it) without regressing performance, but
I'd be happy if someone else could come up with a way.
> > this with a 2nd atomic and without the spinlock but I kept having a
> > hole one way or the other. I ended up just trying to keep the
> > spinlock section as small as possible.
> >
> > If you know of a way to get rid of the spinlock that still makes the
> > code correct, I'd be super interested! :-) I certainly won't claim
> > that it's impossible to do, only that I didn't manage to come up with
> > a way.
>
> As I mentioned, if BFQ doesn't dispatch request in this special way,
> there isn't such race.
OK, so I guess this puts it in Paolo's court then. I'm about done for
the evening, but maybe he can comment on it or come up with a fix?
-Doug
