> From: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 1:45 PM
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 03:14:54AM +0000, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > Hi Ming,
> >
> > > From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2024 6:57 PM
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 08:08:48PM +0200, Parav Pandit wrote:
> > > > When the PCI device is surprise removed, requests won't complete
> > > > from the device. These IOs are never completed and disk deletion
> > > > hangs indefinitely.
> > > >
> > > > Fix it by aborting the IOs which the device will never complete
> > > > when the VQ is broken.
> > > >
> > > > With this fix now fio completes swiftly.
> > > > An alternative of IO timeout has been considered, however when the
> > > > driver knows about unresponsive block device, swiftly clearing
> > > > them enables users and upper layers to react quickly.
> > > >
> > > > Verified with multiple device unplug cycles with pending IOs in
> > > > virtio used ring and some pending with device.
> > > >
> > > > In future instead of VQ broken, a more elegant method can be used.
> > > > At the moment the patch is kept to its minimal changes given its
> > > > urgency to fix broken kernels.
> > > >
> > > > Fixes: 43bb40c5b926 ("virtio_pci: Support surprise removal of
> > > > virtio pci device")
> > > > Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Reported-by: lirongqing@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > Closes:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/virtualization/c45dd68698cd47238c55fb73ca9
> > > > b474
> > > > 1@xxxxxxxxx/
> > > > Co-developed-by: Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Parav Pandit <parav@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/block/virtio_blk.c | 54
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > > b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c index 2bf14a0e2815..59b49899b229
> > > > 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
> > > > @@ -1562,10 +1562,64 @@ static int virtblk_probe(struct
> > > > virtio_device
> > > *vdev)
> > > > return err;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static bool virtblk_cancel_request(struct request *rq, void *data) {
> > > > + struct virtblk_req *vbr = blk_mq_rq_to_pdu(rq);
> > > > +
> > > > + vbr->in_hdr.status = VIRTIO_BLK_S_IOERR;
> > > > + if (blk_mq_request_started(rq) && !blk_mq_request_completed(rq))
> > > > + blk_mq_complete_request(rq);
> > > > +
> > > > + return true;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +static void virtblk_cleanup_reqs(struct virtio_blk *vblk) {
> > > > + struct virtio_blk_vq *blk_vq;
> > > > + struct request_queue *q;
> > > > + struct virtqueue *vq;
> > > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > > + int i;
> > > > +
> > > > + vq = vblk->vqs[0].vq;
> > > > + if (!virtqueue_is_broken(vq))
> > > > + return;
> > > > +
> > >
> > > What if the surprise happens after the above check?
> > >
> > >
> > In that small timing window, the race still exists.
> >
> > I think, blk_mq_quiesce_queue(q); should move up before cleanup_reqs()
> regardless of surprise case along with other below changes.
> >
> > Additionally, for non-surprise case, better to have a graceful timeout to
> complete already queued requests.
> > In absence of timeout scheme for this regression, shall we only complete the
> requests which the device has already completed (instead of waiting for the
> grace time)?
> > There was past work from Chaitanaya, for the graceful timeout.
> >
> > The sequence for the fix I have in mind is:
> > 1. quiesce the queue
> > 2. complete all requests which has completed, with its status 3. stop
> > the transport (queues) 4. complete remaining pending requests with
> > error status
> >
> > This should work regardless of surprise case.
> > An additional/optional graceful timeout on non-surprise case can be helpful
> for #2.
> >
> > WDYT?
>
> All this is unnecessarily hard for drivers... I am thinking maybe after we set
> broken we should go ahead and invoke all callbacks.
Yes, #2 is about invoking the callbacks.
The issue is not with setting the flag broken. As Ming pointed, the issue is : we may miss setting the broken.
Without graceful time out it is straight forward code, just rearrangement of APIs in this patch with existing code.
The question is : it is really if we really care for that grace period when the device or driver is already on its exit path and VQ is not broken.
If we don't wait for the request in progress, is it ok?
> interrupt handling core is not making it easy for us - we must disable real
> interrupts if we do, and in the past we failed to do it.
> See e.g.
>
>
> commit eb4cecb453a19b34d5454b49532e09e9cb0c1529
> Author: Jason Wang <jasowang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed Mar 23 11:15:24 2022 +0800
>
> Revert "virtio_pci: harden MSI-X interrupts"
>
> This reverts commit 9e35276a5344f74d4a3600fc4100b3dd251d5c56.
> Issue
> were reported for the drivers that are using affinity managed IRQ
> where manually toggling IRQ status is not expected. And we forget to
> enable the interrupts in the restore path as well.
>
> In the future, we will rework on the interrupt hardening.
>
> Fixes: 9e35276a5344 ("virtio_pci: harden MSI-X interrupts")
>
>
>
> If someone can figure out a way to make toggling interrupt state play nice with
> affinity managed interrupts, that would solve a host of issues I feel.
>
>
>
> > > Thanks,
> > > Ming
