Re: 4.14: WARNING: CPU: 4 PID: 2895 at block/blk-mq.c:1144 with virtio-blk

[Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>]

On 11/21/2017 09:35 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/20/2017 09:52 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 11/20/2017 01:49 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/20/2017 08:42 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/2017 12:29 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/20/2017 08:20 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 15:42 +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>>>>> This is 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> b7a71e66d (Jens Axboe                2017-08-01 09:28:24 -0600 1141)     * are mapped to it.
>>>>>>> b7a71e66d (Jens Axboe                2017-08-01 09:28:24 -0600 1142)     */
>>>>>>> 6a83e74d2 (Bart Van Assche           2016-11-02 10:09:51 -0600 1143)    WARN_ON(!cpumask_test_cpu(raw_smp_processor_id(), hctx->cpumask) &&
>>>>>>> 6a83e74d2 (Bart Van Assche           2016-11-02 10:09:51 -0600 1144)            cpu_online(hctx->next_cpu));
>>>>>>> 6a83e74d2 (Bart Van Assche           2016-11-02 10:09:51 -0600 1145) 
>>>>>>> b7a71e66d (Jens Axboe                2017-08-01 09:28:24 -0600 1146)    /*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you really try to figure out when the code that reported the warning
>>>>>> was introduced? I think that warning was introduced through the following
>>>>>> commit:
>>>>>
>>>>> This was more a cut'n'paste to show which warning triggered since line numbers are somewhat volatile.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> commit fd1270d5df6a005e1248e87042159a799cc4b2c9
>>>>>> Date:   Wed Apr 16 09:23:48 2014 -0600
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     blk-mq: don't use preempt_count() to check for right CPU
>>>>>>      
>>>>>>     UP or CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE will return 0, and what we really
>>>>>>     want to check is whether or not we are on the right CPU.
>>>>>>     So don't make PREEMPT part of this, just test the CPU in
>>>>>>     the mask directly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, I think that warning is appropriate and useful. So the next step
>>>>>> is to figure out what work item was involved and why that work item got
>>>>>> executed on the wrong CPU.
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to be related to virtio-blk (is triggered by fio on such disks). Your comment basically
>>>>> says: "no this is not a known issue" then :-)
>>>>> I will try to take a dump to find out the work item
>>>>
>>>> blk-mq does not attempt to freeze/sync existing work if a CPU goes away,
>>>> and we reconfigure the mappings. So I don't think the above is unexpected,
>>>> if you are doing CPU hot unplug while running a fio job.
>>>
>>> I did a cpu hot plug (adding a CPU) and I started fio AFTER that.
>>
>> OK, that's different, we should not be triggering a warning for that.
>> What does your machine/virtblk topology look like in terms of CPUS,
>> nr of queues for virtblk, etc?
> 
> FWIW, 4.11 does work, 4.12 and later is broken.

In fact: 4.12 is fine, 4.12.14 is broken.