From: "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@huawei.com>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: <axboe@kernel.dk>, <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v2] blk-mq: fix panic during blk_mq_run_work_fn()
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 16:49:19 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dbe2deec-b007-470f-eb5a-35fae63ad134@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YodSlSm/sIC8G2iG@T590>
在 2022/05/20 16:34, Ming Lei 写道:
> On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 03:02:13PM +0800, yukuai (C) wrote:
>> 在 2022/05/20 14:23, yukuai (C) 写道:
>>> 在 2022/05/20 11:44, Ming Lei 写道:
>>>> On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 11:25:42AM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
>>>>> Our test report a following crash:
>>>>>
>>>>> BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000018
>>>>> PGD 0 P4D 0
>>>>> Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI
>>>>> CPU: 6 PID: 265 Comm: kworker/6:1H Kdump: loaded Tainted: G
>>>>> O 5.10.0-60.17.0.h43.eulerosv2r11.x86_64 #1
>>>>> Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS
>>>>> rel-1.12.1-0-ga5cab58-20220320_160524-szxrtosci10000 04/01/2014
>>>>> Workqueue: kblockd blk_mq_run_work_fn
>>>>> RIP: 0010:blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queues+0xb6/0xe0
>>>>> RSP: 0018:ffffacc6803d3d88 EFLAGS: 00010246
>>>>> RAX: 0000000000000006 RBX: ffff99e2c3d25008 RCX: 00000000ffffffff
>>>>> RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 0000000000000003 RDI: ffff99e2c911ae18
>>>>> RBP: ffffacc6803d3dd8 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: ffff99e2c0901f6c
>>>>> R10: 0000000000000018 R11: 0000000000000018 R12: ffff99e2c911ae18
>>>>> R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000000000003 R15: ffff99e2c911ae18
>>>>> FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff99e6bbf00000(0000)
>>>>> knlGS:0000000000000000
>>>>> CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
>>>>> CR2: 0000000000000018 CR3: 000000007460a006 CR4: 00000000003706e0
>>>>> Call Trace:
>>>>> __blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched+0x2a7/0x2c0
>>>>> ? newidle_balance+0x23e/0x2f0
>>>>> __blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests+0x13f/0x190
>>>>> blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests+0x30/0x60
>>>>> __blk_mq_run_hw_queue+0x47/0xd0
>>>>> process_one_work+0x1b0/0x350
>>>>> worker_thread+0x49/0x300
>>>>> ? rescuer_thread+0x3a0/0x3a0
>>>>> kthread+0xfe/0x140
>>>>> ? kthread_park+0x90/0x90
>>>>> ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
>>>>>
>>>>> After digging from vmcore, I found that the queue is cleaned
>>>>> up(blk_cleanup_queue() is done) and tag set is
>>>>> freed(blk_mq_free_tag_set() is done).
>>>>>
>>>>> There are two problems here:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queues() will only be called from
>>>>> __blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched() if e->type->ops.has_work() return true.
>>>>> This seems impossible because blk_cleanup_queue() is done, and there
>>>>> should be no io. Commit ddc25c86b466 ("block, bfq: make bfq_has_work()
>>>>> more accurate") fix the problem in bfq. And currently ohter schedulers
>>>>> don't have such problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) 'hctx->run_work' still exists after blk_cleanup_queue().
>>>>> blk_mq_cancel_work_sync() is called from blk_cleanup_queue() to cancel
>>>>> all the 'run_work'. However, there is no guarantee that new 'run_work'
>>>>> won't be queued after that(and before blk_mq_exit_queue() is done).
>>>>
>>>> It is blk_mq_run_hw_queue() caller's responsibility to grab
>>>> ->q_usage_counter for avoiding queue cleaned up, so please fix the user
>>>> side.
>>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your advice.
>>>
>>> blk_mq_run_hw_queue() can be called async, in order to do that, what I
>>> can think of is that grab 'q_usage_counte' before queuing 'run->work'
>>> and release it after. Which is very similar to this patch...
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> How do you think about following change:
>>
>
> I think the issue is in blk_mq_map_queue_type() which may touch tagset.
>
> So please try the following patch:
>
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> index ed1869a305c4..5789e971ac83 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> @@ -2174,8 +2174,7 @@ static bool blk_mq_has_sqsched(struct request_queue *q)
> */
> static struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *blk_mq_get_sq_hctx(struct request_queue *q)
> {
> - struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx;
> -
> + struct blk_mq_ctx *ctx = blk_mq_get_ctx(q);
> /*
> * If the IO scheduler does not respect hardware queues when
> * dispatching, we just don't bother with multiple HW queues and
> @@ -2183,8 +2182,8 @@ static struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *blk_mq_get_sq_hctx(struct request_queue *q)
> * just causes lock contention inside the scheduler and pointless cache
> * bouncing.
> */
> - hctx = blk_mq_map_queue_type(q, HCTX_TYPE_DEFAULT,
> - raw_smp_processor_id());
> + struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx = blk_mq_map_queue(q, 0, ctx);
> +
> if (!blk_mq_hctx_stopped(hctx))
> return hctx;
> return NULL;
Hi, Ming
This patch do make sense, however, this doesn't fix the root cause, it
just bypass the problem like commit ddc25c86b466 ("block, bfq: make
bfq_has_work() more accurate"), which will prevent
blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queues() to be called in such case.
I do think we need to make sure 'run_work' doesn't exist after
blk_cleanup_queue().
Thanks,
Kuai
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-20 8:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-20 3:25 Yu Kuai
2022-05-20 3:44 ` Ming Lei
2022-05-20 6:23 ` yukuai (C)
2022-05-20 7:02 ` yukuai (C)
2022-05-20 8:34 ` Ming Lei
2022-05-20 8:49 ` yukuai (C) [this message]
2022-05-20 9:53 ` Ming Lei
2022-05-20 10:56 ` yukuai (C)
2022-05-20 11:39 ` Ming Lei
2022-05-20 12:01 ` yukuai (C)
2022-05-20 13:56 ` Ming Lei
2022-05-21 3:33 ` yukuai (C)
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=dbe2deec-b007-470f-eb5a-35fae63ad134@huawei.com \
--to=yukuai3@huawei.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=yi.zhang@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
Powered by JetHome