From: Yu Kuai <yukuai@kernel.org>
To: axboe@kernel.dk, tj@kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, nilay@linux.ibm.com, bvanassche@acm.org,
ming.lei@redhat.com, hch@lst.de
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 12/19] blk-throttle: fix possible deadlock due to queue_lock in timer
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 17:14:37 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20251010091446.3048529-13-yukuai@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251010091446.3048529-1-yukuai@kernel.org>
From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
Abusing queue_lock to protect blk-throttle can cause deadlock:
1) throtl_pending_timer_fn() will hold the lock, while throtl_pd_free()
will flush the timer, this is fixed by protecting blkgs with
blkcg_mutex instead of queue_lock by previous patches.
2) queue_lock can be held from hardirq context, hence if
throtl_pending_timer_fn() is interrupted by hardirq, deadlock can be
triggered as well.
Stop abusing queue_lock to protect blk-throttle, and intorduce a new
internal lock td->lock for protection. And now that the new lock won't
be grabbed from hardirq context, it's safe to use spin_lock_bh() from
thread context and spin_lock() directly from softirq context.
Fixes: 6e1a5704cbbd ("blk-throttle: dispatch from throtl_pending_timer_fn()")
Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
---
block/blk-throttle.c | 31 +++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
index cb3bfdb4684a..7feaa2ef0a6b 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.c
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
@@ -33,6 +33,7 @@ static struct workqueue_struct *kthrotld_workqueue;
struct throtl_data
{
+ spinlock_t lock;
/* service tree for active throtl groups */
struct throtl_service_queue service_queue;
@@ -1149,7 +1150,7 @@ static void throtl_pending_timer_fn(struct timer_list *t)
else
q = td->queue;
- spin_lock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
+ spin_lock(&td->lock);
if (!q->root_blkg)
goto out_unlock;
@@ -1175,9 +1176,9 @@ static void throtl_pending_timer_fn(struct timer_list *t)
break;
/* this dispatch windows is still open, relax and repeat */
- spin_unlock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock(&td->lock);
cpu_relax();
- spin_lock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
+ spin_lock(&td->lock);
}
if (!dispatched)
@@ -1200,7 +1201,7 @@ static void throtl_pending_timer_fn(struct timer_list *t)
queue_work(kthrotld_workqueue, &td->dispatch_work);
}
out_unlock:
- spin_unlock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock(&td->lock);
}
/**
@@ -1216,7 +1217,6 @@ static void blk_throtl_dispatch_work_fn(struct work_struct *work)
struct throtl_data *td = container_of(work, struct throtl_data,
dispatch_work);
struct throtl_service_queue *td_sq = &td->service_queue;
- struct request_queue *q = td->queue;
struct bio_list bio_list_on_stack;
struct bio *bio;
struct blk_plug plug;
@@ -1224,11 +1224,11 @@ static void blk_throtl_dispatch_work_fn(struct work_struct *work)
bio_list_init(&bio_list_on_stack);
- spin_lock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
+ spin_lock_bh(&td->lock);
for (rw = READ; rw <= WRITE; rw++)
while ((bio = throtl_pop_queued(td_sq, NULL, rw)))
bio_list_add(&bio_list_on_stack, bio);
- spin_unlock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&td->lock);
if (!bio_list_empty(&bio_list_on_stack)) {
blk_start_plug(&plug);
@@ -1306,7 +1306,7 @@ static void tg_conf_updated(struct throtl_grp *tg, bool global)
rcu_read_unlock();
/*
- * We're already holding queue_lock and know @tg is valid. Let's
+ * We're already holding td->lock and know @tg is valid. Let's
* apply the new config directly.
*
* Restart the slices for both READ and WRITES. It might happen
@@ -1333,6 +1333,7 @@ static int blk_throtl_init(struct gendisk *disk)
if (!td)
return -ENOMEM;
+ spin_lock_init(&td->lock);
INIT_WORK(&td->dispatch_work, blk_throtl_dispatch_work_fn);
throtl_service_queue_init(&td->service_queue);
@@ -1703,12 +1704,7 @@ void blk_throtl_cancel_bios(struct gendisk *disk)
if (!blk_throtl_activated(q))
return;
- spin_lock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
- /*
- * queue_lock is held, rcu lock is not needed here technically.
- * However, rcu lock is still held to emphasize that following
- * path need RCU protection and to prevent warning from lockdep.
- */
+ spin_lock_bh(&q->td->lock);
rcu_read_lock();
blkg_for_each_descendant_post(blkg, pos_css, q->root_blkg) {
/*
@@ -1722,7 +1718,7 @@ void blk_throtl_cancel_bios(struct gendisk *disk)
tg_flush_bios(blkg_to_tg(blkg));
}
rcu_read_unlock();
- spin_unlock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&q->td->lock);
}
static bool tg_within_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio, bool rw)
@@ -1755,7 +1751,6 @@ static bool tg_within_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio, bool rw)
bool __blk_throtl_bio(struct bio *bio)
{
- struct request_queue *q = bdev_get_queue(bio->bi_bdev);
struct blkcg_gq *blkg = bio->bi_blkg;
struct throtl_qnode *qn = NULL;
struct throtl_grp *tg = blkg_to_tg(blkg);
@@ -1765,7 +1760,7 @@ bool __blk_throtl_bio(struct bio *bio)
struct throtl_data *td = tg->td;
rcu_read_lock();
- spin_lock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
+ spin_lock_bh(&td->lock);
sq = &tg->service_queue;
while (true) {
@@ -1841,7 +1836,7 @@ bool __blk_throtl_bio(struct bio *bio)
}
out_unlock:
- spin_unlock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&td->lock);
rcu_read_unlock();
return throttled;
--
2.51.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-10-10 9:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-10-10 9:14 [PATCH v2 00/19] blk-cgroup: convert to use blkcg_mutex for protection Yu Kuai
2025-10-10 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 01/19] blk-cgroup: protect iterating blkgs with blkcg->lock in blkcg_print_stat() Yu Kuai
2025-10-10 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 02/19] blk-cgroup: delay freeing policy data after rcu grace period Yu Kuai
2025-10-10 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 03/19] blk-cgroup: don't nest queue_lock under rcu in blkcg_print_blkgs() Yu Kuai
2025-10-10 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 04/19] blk-cgroup: don't nest queue_lock under rcu in blkg_lookup_create() Yu Kuai
2025-10-10 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 05/19] blk-cgroup: don't nest queu_lock under rcu in bio_associate_blkg() Yu Kuai
2025-10-10 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 06/19] blk-cgroup: don't nest queue_lock under blkcg->lock in blkcg_destroy_blkgs() Yu Kuai
2025-10-10 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 07/19] mm/page_io: don't nest queue_lock under rcu in bio_associate_blkg_from_page() Yu Kuai
2025-10-10 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 08/19] block, bfq: don't grab queue_lock to initialize bfq Yu Kuai
2025-10-10 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 09/19] blk-cgroup: convert to protect blkgs with blkcg_mutex Yu Kuai
2025-10-10 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 10/19] blk-cgroup: remove radix_tree_preload() Yu Kuai
2025-10-10 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 11/19] blk-cgroup: remove preallocate blkg for blkg_create() Yu Kuai
2025-10-10 9:14 ` Yu Kuai [this message]
2025-10-10 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 13/19] blk-cgroup: add new blkg configuration helpers Yu Kuai
2025-10-10 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 14/19] blk-cgroup: factor out a helper __blkg_activate_policy() Yu Kuai
2025-10-10 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 15/19] blk-throttle: convert to use blkg_conf_{start, end} Yu Kuai
2025-10-10 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 16/19] block, bfq: " Yu Kuai
2025-10-10 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 17/19] blk-iolatency: " Yu Kuai
2025-10-10 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 18/19] blk-iocost: " Yu Kuai
2025-10-10 9:14 ` [PATCH v2 19/19] blk-cgroup: remove unsed blkg configuration helpers Yu Kuai
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20251010091446.3048529-13-yukuai@kernel.org \
--to=yukuai@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=nilay@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=yukuai3@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®