Re: [RFC PATCH] scsi: fix oops in scsi_uninit_cmd()

[Jason Yan <yanaijie@huawei.com>]

On 2019/3/14 7:51, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 16:53 +0800, Jason Yan wrote:
>> On 2019/2/20 23:18, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> [fullquote removed, please follow proper mail etiquette]
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 08:56:28AM -0800, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>>> regression in the SCSI sd driver due to the switch from the legacy block
>>>> layer to scsi-mq. The above patch introduces two atomic operations in the
>>>> hot path and hence would introduce a performance regression. I think this
>>>> can be avoided by making sure that sd_uninit_command() gets called before
>>>> the request tag is freed. What changes would be required to make the block
>>>> layer core call sd_uninit_command() before the request tag is freed? Would
>>>> introducing prep_rq_fn and unprep_rq_fn callbacks in struct blk_mq_ops and
>>>> making sure that the SCSI core sets these callback function pointers
>>>> appropriately be sufficient? Would such a change allow to simplify the NVMe
>>>> initiator driver? Are there any alternatives to this approach that are more
>>>> elegant?
>>>
>>> Additional indirect calls in the I/O fast path is something I'd rather
>>> avoid.  But I don't fully understand the problem yet - where do
>>> we release a disk reference from blk_update_request?
>>
>> When userspace close the fd after blk_update_request() and before
>> scsi_mq_uninit_cmd(), a disk reference will be released. It is not the
>> blk_update_request() directly released it.
>>
>> close
>>      ->sd_release
>>         ->scsi_disk_put
>>           ->scsi_disk_release
>>             ->disk->private_data = NULL;
>>
>> The userspace can close the fd because blk_update_request() returned the
>> last IO , the userspace application does not have to stuck on read() or
>> write(). The window is very small, but it can be reproduce every day
>> in our testcases. So I'm very curious why. One possible explanation is
>> that we enabled kernel preempt(CONFIG_PREEMPT).
>>
>> And why can't we move that release to __blk_mq_end_request?
> 
> Hi Jason,
> 
> What is the current status of this issue?
> 

Hi Bart,

I did not find any other approach that will not affect the hot path. I 
don't know if you guys have other suggestions?

> Thanks,
> 
> Bart.
> 
> .
>