On 12/03/2021 09:20, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> 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 ?
>
In scsi_lib.c we only have these two patches in that area:
684da7628d93 ("block: remove unnecessary argument from blk_execute_rq")
962c8dcdd5fa ("scsi: core: Add a new error code DID_TRANSPORT_MARGINAL in scsi.h")
and none of them can cause the failure either. In block we have:
0a2efafbb1c7 ("blk-mq: Always complete remote completions requests in softirq")
but this doesn't look guilty as well, all it does is raising a softirq for all
block completions local and remote.
