Message ID | 20200420162454.48679-1-dianders@chromium.org (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | blk-mq: Fix two causes of IO stalls found in reboot testing | expand |
On 4/20/20 10:24 AM, Douglas Anderson wrote: > While doing reboot testing, I found that occasionally my device would > trigger the hung task detector. Many tasks were stuck waiting for the > a blkdev mutex, but at least one task in the system was always sitting > waiting for IO to complete (and holding the blkdev mutex). One > example of a task that was just waiting for its IO to complete on one > reboot: > > udevd D 0 2177 306 0x00400209 > Call trace: > __switch_to+0x15c/0x17c > __schedule+0x6e0/0x928 > schedule+0x8c/0xbc > schedule_timeout+0x9c/0xfc > io_schedule_timeout+0x24/0x48 > do_wait_for_common+0xd0/0x160 > wait_for_completion_io_timeout+0x54/0x74 > blk_execute_rq+0x9c/0xd8 > __scsi_execute+0x104/0x198 > scsi_test_unit_ready+0xa0/0x154 > sd_check_events+0xb4/0x164 > disk_check_events+0x58/0x154 > disk_clear_events+0x74/0x110 > check_disk_change+0x28/0x6c > sd_open+0x5c/0x130 > __blkdev_get+0x20c/0x3d4 > blkdev_get+0x74/0x170 > blkdev_open+0x94/0xa8 > do_dentry_open+0x268/0x3a0 > vfs_open+0x34/0x40 > path_openat+0x39c/0xdf4 > do_filp_open+0x90/0x10c > do_sys_open+0x150/0x3c8 > ... > > I've reproduced this on two systems: one boots from an internal UFS > disk and one from eMMC. Each has a card reader attached via USB with > an SD card plugged in. On the USB-attached SD card is a disk with 12 > partitions (a Chrome OS test image), if it matters. The system > doesn't do much with the USB disk other than probe it (it's plugged in > my system to help me recover). > > From digging, I believe that there are two separate but related > issues. Both issues relate to the SCSI code saying that there is no > budget. > > I have done testing with only one or the other of the two patches in > this series and found that I could still encounter hung tasks if only > one of the two patches was applied. This deserves a bit of > explanation. To me, it's fairly obvious that the first fix wouldn't > fix the problems talked about in the second patch. However, it's less > obvious why the second patch doesn't fix the problems in > blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(). It turns out that it _almost_ does > (problems become much more rare), but I did manage to get a single > trace where the "kick" scheduled by the second patch happened really > quickly. The scheduled kick then ran and found nothing to do. This > happened in parallel to a task running in blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list() > which hadn't gotten around to splicing the list back into > hctx->dispatch. This is why we need both fixes. > > Most of my testing has been atop Chrome OS 5.4's kernel tree which > currently has v5.4.30 merged in. The Chrome OS 5.4 tree also has a > patch by Salman Qazi, namely ("block: Limit number of items taken from > the I/O scheduler in one go"). Reverting that patch didn't make the > hung tasks go away, so I kept it in for most of my testing. > > I have also done some testing on mainline Linux (most on what git > describe calls v5.6-rc7-227-gf3e69428b5e2) even without Salman's > patch. I found that I could reproduce the problems there and that > traces looked about the same as I saw on the downstream branch. These > patches were also confirmed to fix the problems on mainline. > > Chrome OS is currently setup to use the BFQ scheduler and I found that > I couldn't reproduce the problems without BFQ. As discussed in the > second patch this is believed to be because BFQ sometimes returns > "true" from has_work() but then NULL from dispatch_request(). > > I'll insert my usual caveat that I'm sending patches to code that I > know very little about. If I'm making a total bozo patch here, please > help me figure out how I should fix the problems I found in a better > way. > > If you want to see a total ridiculous amount of chatter where I > stumbled around a whole bunch trying to figure out what was wrong and > how to fix it, feel free to read <https://crbug.com/1061950>. I > promise it will make your eyes glaze over right away if this cover > letter didn't already do that. Specifically comment 79 in that bug > includes a link to my ugly prototype of making BFQ's has_work() more > exact (I only managed it by actually defining _both_ an exact and > inexact function to avoid circular locking problems when it was called > directly from blk_mq_hctx_has_pending()). Comment 79 also has more > thoughts about alternatives considered. > > I don't know if these fixes represent a regression of some sort or are > new. As per above I could only reproduce with BFQ enabled which makes > it nearly impossible to go too far back with this. I haven't listed > any "Fixes" tags here, but if someone felt it was appropriate to > backport this to some stable trees that seems like it'd be nice. > Presumably at least 5.4 stable would make sense. > > Thanks to Salman Qazi, Paolo Valente, and Guenter Roeck who spent a > bunch of time helping me trawl through some of this code and reviewing > early versions of this patch. Applied, thanks.