4.5-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Roman Pen <roman.penyaev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> commit 346c09f80459a3ad97df1816d6d606169a51001a upstream. The bug in a workqueue leads to a stalled IO request in MQ ctx->rq_list with the following backtrace: [ 601.347452] INFO: task kworker/u129:5:1636 blocked for more than 120 seconds. [ 601.347574] Tainted: G O 4.4.5-1-storage+ #6 [ 601.347651] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. [ 601.348142] kworker/u129:5 D ffff880803077988 0 1636 2 0x00000000 [ 601.348519] Workqueue: ibnbd_server_fileio_wq ibnbd_dev_file_submit_io_worker [ibnbd_server] [ 601.348999] ffff880803077988 ffff88080466b900 ffff8808033f9c80 ffff880803078000 [ 601.349662] ffff880807c95000 7fffffffffffffff ffffffff815b0920 ffff880803077ad0 [ 601.350333] ffff8808030779a0 ffffffff815b01d5 0000000000000000 ffff880803077a38 [ 601.350965] Call Trace: [ 601.351203] [<ffffffff815b0920>] ? bit_wait+0x60/0x60 [ 601.351444] [<ffffffff815b01d5>] schedule+0x35/0x80 [ 601.351709] [<ffffffff815b2dd2>] schedule_timeout+0x192/0x230 [ 601.351958] [<ffffffff812d43f7>] ? blk_flush_plug_list+0xc7/0x220 [ 601.352208] [<ffffffff810bd737>] ? ktime_get+0x37/0xa0 [ 601.352446] [<ffffffff815b0920>] ? bit_wait+0x60/0x60 [ 601.352688] [<ffffffff815af784>] io_schedule_timeout+0xa4/0x110 [ 601.352951] [<ffffffff815b3a4e>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0xe/0x10 [ 601.353196] [<ffffffff815b093b>] bit_wait_io+0x1b/0x70 [ 601.353440] [<ffffffff815b056d>] __wait_on_bit+0x5d/0x90 [ 601.353689] [<ffffffff81127bd0>] wait_on_page_bit+0xc0/0xd0 [ 601.353958] [<ffffffff81096db0>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x40/0x40 [ 601.354200] [<ffffffff81127cc4>] __filemap_fdatawait_range+0xe4/0x140 [ 601.354441] [<ffffffff81127d34>] filemap_fdatawait_range+0x14/0x30 [ 601.354688] [<ffffffff81129a9f>] filemap_write_and_wait_range+0x3f/0x70 [ 601.354932] [<ffffffff811ced3b>] blkdev_fsync+0x1b/0x50 [ 601.355193] [<ffffffff811c82d9>] vfs_fsync_range+0x49/0xa0 [ 601.355432] [<ffffffff811cf45a>] blkdev_write_iter+0xca/0x100 [ 601.355679] [<ffffffff81197b1a>] __vfs_write+0xaa/0xe0 [ 601.355925] [<ffffffff81198379>] vfs_write+0xa9/0x1a0 [ 601.356164] [<ffffffff811c59d8>] kernel_write+0x38/0x50 The underlying device is a null_blk, with default parameters: queue_mode = MQ submit_queues = 1 Verification that nullb0 has something inflight: root@pserver8:~# cat /sys/block/nullb0/inflight 0 1 root@pserver8:~# find /sys/block/nullb0/mq/0/cpu* -name rq_list -print -exec cat {} \; ... /sys/block/nullb0/mq/0/cpu2/rq_list CTX pending: ffff8838038e2400 ... During debug it became clear that stalled request is always inserted in the rq_list from the following path: save_stack_trace_tsk + 34 blk_mq_insert_requests + 231 blk_mq_flush_plug_list + 281 blk_flush_plug_list + 199 wait_on_page_bit + 192 __filemap_fdatawait_range + 228 filemap_fdatawait_range + 20 filemap_write_and_wait_range + 63 blkdev_fsync + 27 vfs_fsync_range + 73 blkdev_write_iter + 202 __vfs_write + 170 vfs_write + 169 kernel_write + 56 So blk_flush_plug_list() was called with from_schedule == true. If from_schedule is true, that means that finally blk_mq_insert_requests() offloads execution of __blk_mq_run_hw_queue() and uses kblockd workqueue, i.e. it calls kblockd_schedule_delayed_work_on(). That means, that we race with another CPU, which is about to execute __blk_mq_run_hw_queue() work. Further debugging shows the following traces from different CPUs: CPU#0 CPU#1 ---------------------------------- ------------------------------- reqeust A inserted STORE hctx->ctx_map[0] bit marked kblockd_schedule...() returns 1 <schedule to kblockd workqueue> request B inserted STORE hctx->ctx_map[1] bit marked kblockd_schedule...() returns 0 *** WORK PENDING bit is cleared *** flush_busy_ctxs() is executed, but bit 1, set by CPU#1, is not observed As a result request B pended forever. This behaviour can be explained by speculative LOAD of hctx->ctx_map on CPU#0, which is reordered with clear of PENDING bit and executed _before_ actual STORE of bit 1 on CPU#1. The proper fix is an explicit full barrier <mfence>, which guarantees that clear of PENDING bit is to be executed before all possible speculative LOADS or STORES inside actual work function. Signed-off-by: Roman Pen <roman.penyaev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Gioh Kim <gi-oh.kim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Michael Wang <yun.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- kernel/workqueue.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+) --- a/kernel/workqueue.c +++ b/kernel/workqueue.c @@ -667,6 +667,35 @@ static void set_work_pool_and_clear_pend */ smp_wmb(); set_work_data(work, (unsigned long)pool_id << WORK_OFFQ_POOL_SHIFT, 0); + /* + * The following mb guarantees that previous clear of a PENDING bit + * will not be reordered with any speculative LOADS or STORES from + * work->current_func, which is executed afterwards. This possible + * reordering can lead to a missed execution on attempt to qeueue + * the same @work. E.g. consider this case: + * + * CPU#0 CPU#1 + * ---------------------------- -------------------------------- + * + * 1 STORE event_indicated + * 2 queue_work_on() { + * 3 test_and_set_bit(PENDING) + * 4 } set_..._and_clear_pending() { + * 5 set_work_data() # clear bit + * 6 smp_mb() + * 7 work->current_func() { + * 8 LOAD event_indicated + * } + * + * Without an explicit full barrier speculative LOAD on line 8 can + * be executed before CPU#0 does STORE on line 1. If that happens, + * CPU#0 observes the PENDING bit is still set and new execution of + * a @work is not queued in a hope, that CPU#1 will eventually + * finish the queued @work. Meanwhile CPU#1 does not see + * event_indicated is set, because speculative LOAD was executed + * before actual STORE. + */ + smp_mb(); } static void clear_work_data(struct work_struct *work) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html