On 2021/03/12 16:59, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On 12/03/2021 08:27, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> On 2021/03/12 13:38, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
>>> On Mar 11, 2021 / 15:54, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
>>>> On 11/03/2021 16:48, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>>>> On 3/11/21 7:18 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/03/2021 16:13, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/10/21 1:48 AM, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
>>>>>>>> Recent changes [ ... ]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please add Fixes: and/or Cc: stable tags as appropriate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I couldn't pin down the offending commit and I can't reproduce it locally
>>>>>> as well, so I opted out of this. But it must be something between v5.11 and v5.12-rc2.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's weird. Did Shinichiro use a HBA? Could this be the result of a
>>>>> behavior change in the HBA driver?
>>>>
>>>> Yes I've looked at the commits in mpt3sas, but can't really pinpoint the
>>>> offending commit TBH. 664f0dce2058 ("scsi: mpt3sas: Add support for shared
>>>> host tagset for CPU hotplug") is the only one that /looks/ as if it could
>>>> be causing it, but I don't know mpt3sas well enough.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW added Sreekanth
>>>
>>> The WARNING was found in kernel v5.12-rc2 test with a SAS SMR drive and HBA
>>> Broadcom 9400. It can be recreated by running blktests block/004 on the drive
>>> (after reboot). It is also recreated with SATA SMR drive with the HBA, but not
>>> observed with SATA drives connected to AHCI.
>>>
>>> I reverted the commit 664f0dce2058, then the WARNING disappeared. I suppose
>>> it indicates that the commit changed HBA driver behavior.
>>
>> Can you send the warning splat with backtrace ?
>>
>
> The warning splat is in the commit message:
> CPU: 0 PID: 0 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 5.12.0-rc2+ #2
> Hardware name: Supermicro Super Server/X10SRL-F, BIOS 2.0 12/17/2015
> RIP: 0010:__local_bh_disable_ip+0x3f/0x50
> RSP: 0018:ffff8883e1409ba8 EFLAGS: 00010006
> RAX: 0000000080010001 RBX: 0000000000000001 RCX: 0000000000000013
> RDX: ffff888129e4d200 RSI: 0000000000000201 RDI: ffffffff915b9dbd
> RBP: ffff888113e9a540 R08: ffff888113e9a540 R09: 00000000000077f0
> R10: 0000000000080000 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: ffff888129e4d200
> R13: 0000000000001000 R14: 00000000000077f0 R15: ffff888129e4d218
> FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8883e1400000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
> CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
> CR2: 00007f2f8418ebc0 CR3: 000000021202a006 CR4: 00000000001706f0
> Call Trace:
> <IRQ>
> _raw_spin_lock_bh+0x18/0x40
> sd_zbc_complete+0x43d/0x1150
> sd_done+0x631/0x1040
> ? mark_lock+0xe4/0x2fd0
> ? provisioning_mode_store+0x3f0/0x3f0
> scsi_finish_command+0x31b/0x5c0
> _scsih_io_done+0x960/0x29e0 [mpt3sas]
> ? mpt3sas_scsih_scsi_lookup_get+0x1c7/0x340 [mpt3sas]
> ? __lock_acquire+0x166b/0x58b0
> ? _get_st_from_smid+0x4a/0x80 [mpt3sas]
> _base_process_reply_queue+0x23f/0x26e0 [mpt3sas]
> ? lock_is_held_type+0x98/0x110
> ? find_held_lock+0x2c/0x110
> ? mpt3sas_base_sync_reply_irqs+0x360/0x360 [mpt3sas]
> _base_interrupt+0x8d/0xd0 [mpt3sas]
> ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x3f/0x70
> __handle_irq_event_percpu+0x24d/0x600
> handle_irq_event+0xef/0x240
> ? handle_irq_event_percpu+0x110/0x110
> handle_edge_irq+0x1f6/0xb60
> __common_interrupt+0x75/0x160
> common_interrupt+0x7b/0xa0
> </IRQ>
> asm_common_interrupt+0x1e/0x40
>
Looking at patch 664f0dce2058, all that seems to be done is to enable
nr_hw_queue > 1. I do not see any change of locking context or irq handling.
>From the backtrace, it does not look like scsi_finish_command() is called from
softirq... Probably a change in that area is responsible ?
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
