Hi Paolo,
On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 04:41:36PM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote:
>
>
> > Il giorno 23 feb 2018, alle ore 16:07, Ming Lei <ming....@redhat.com> ha
> > scritto:
> >
> > Hi Paolo,
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 10:19:20PM +0100, Paolo Valente wrote:
> >> Commit 'a6a252e64914 ("blk-mq-sched: decide how to handle flush rq via
> >> RQF_FLUSH_SEQ")' makes all non-flush re-prepared requests for a device
> >> be re-inserted into the active I/O scheduler for that device. As a
> >
> > No, this behaviour isn't related with commit a6a252e64914, and
> > it has been there since blk_mq_requeue_request() is introduced.
> >
>
> Hi Ming,
> actually, we wrote the above statement after simply following the call
> chain that led to the failure. In this respect, the change in commit
> a6a252e64914:
>
> static bool blk_mq_sched_bypass_insert(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> + bool has_sched,
> struct request *rq)
> {
> - if (rq->tag == -1) {
> + /* dispatch flush rq directly */
> + if (rq->rq_flags & RQF_FLUSH_SEQ) {
> + spin_lock(&hctx->lock);
> + list_add(&rq->queuelist, &hctx->dispatch);
> + spin_unlock(&hctx->lock);
> + return true;
> + }
> +
> + if (has_sched) {
> rq->rq_flags |= RQF_SORTED;
> - return false;
> + WARN_ON(rq->tag != -1);
> }
>
> - /*
> - * If we already have a real request tag, send directly to
> - * the dispatch list.
> - */
> - spin_lock(&hctx->lock);
> - list_add(&rq->queuelist, &hctx->dispatch);
> - spin_unlock(&hctx->lock);
> - return true;
> + return false;
> }
>
> makes blk_mq_sched_bypass_insert return false for all non-flush
> requests. From that, the anomaly described in our commit follows, for
> bfq any stateful scheduler that waits for the completion of requests
> that passed through it. I'm elaborating again a little bit on this in
> my replies to your next points below.
Before a6a252e64914, follows blk_mq_sched_bypass_insert()
if (rq->tag == -1) {
rq->rq_flags |= RQF_SORTED;
return false;
}
/*
* If we already have a real request tag, send directly to
* the dispatch list.
*/
spin_lock(&hctx->lock);
list_add(&rq->queuelist, &hctx->dispatch);
spin_unlock(&hctx->lock);
return true;
This function still returns false for all non-flush request, so nothing
changes wrt. this kind of handling.
>
> I don't mean that this change is an error, it simply sends a stateful
> scheduler in an inconsistent state, unless the scheduler properly
> handles the requeue that precedes the re-insertion into the
> scheduler.
>
> If this clarifies the situation, but there is still some misleading
> statement in the commit, just let me better understand, and I'll be
> glad to rectify it, if possible somehow.
>
>
> > And you can see blk_mq_requeue_request() is called by lots of drivers,
> > especially it is often used in error handler, see SCSI's example.
> >
> >> consequence, I/O schedulers may get the same request inserted again,
> >> even several times, without a finish_request invoked on that request
> >> before each re-insertion.
> >>
>
> ...
>
> >> @@ -5426,7 +5482,8 @@ static struct elevator_type iosched_bfq_mq = {
> >> .ops.mq = {
> >> .limit_depth = bfq_limit_depth,
> >> .prepare_request = bfq_prepare_request,
> >> - .finish_request = bfq_finish_request,
> >> + .requeue_request = bfq_finish_requeue_request,
> >> + .finish_request = bfq_finish_requeue_request,
> >> .exit_icq = bfq_exit_icq,
> >> .insert_requests = bfq_insert_requests,
> >> .dispatch_request = bfq_dispatch_request,
> >
> > This way may not be correct since blk_mq_sched_requeue_request() can be
> > called for one request which won't enter io scheduler.
> >
>
> Exactly, there are two cases: requeues that lead to subsequent
> re-insertions, and requeues that don't. The function
> bfq_finish_requeue_request handles both, and both need to be handled,
> to inform bfq that it has not to wait for the completion of rq any
> longer.
>
> One special case is when bfq_finish_requeue_request gets invoked even
> if rq has nothing to do with any scheduler. In that case,
> bfq_finish_requeue_request exists immediately.
>
>
> > __blk_mq_requeue_request() is called for two cases:
> >
> > - one is that the requeued request is added to hctx->dispatch, such
> > as blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list()
>
> yes
>
> > - another case is that the request is requeued to io scheduler, such as
> > blk_mq_requeue_request().
> >
>
> yes
>
> > For the 1st case, blk_mq_sched_requeue_request() shouldn't be called
> > since it is nothing to do with scheduler,
>
> No, if that rq has been inserted and then extracted from the scheduler
> through a dispatch_request, then it has. The scheduler is stateful,
> and keeps state for rq, because it must do so, until a completion or a
> requeue arrive. In particular, bfq may decide that no other
This 'requeue' to hctx->dispatch is invisible to io scheduler, and from
io scheduler view, seems no difference between STS_OK and STS_RESOURCE,
since this request will be submitted to lld automatically by blk-mq
core.
Also in legacy path, no such notification to io scheduler too.
> bfq_queues must be served before rq has been completed, because this
> is necessary to preserve its target service guarantees. If bfq is not
> informed, either through its completion or its requeue hook, then it
> will wait forever.
The .finish_request will be called after this request is completed for this
case, either after this io is completed by device, or timeout.
Or .requeue_request will be called if the driver need to requeue it to
io scheduler via blk_mq_requeue_request() explicitly.
So io scheduler will be made sure to get notified.
>
> > seems we only need to do that
> > for 2nd case.
> >
>
> > So looks we need the following patch:
> >
> > diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> > index 23de7fd8099a..a216f3c3c3ce 100644
> > --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> > +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> > @@ -712,7 +714,6 @@ static void __blk_mq_requeue_request(struct request *rq)
> >
> > trace_block_rq_requeue(q, rq);
> > wbt_requeue(q->rq_wb, &rq->issue_stat);
> > - blk_mq_sched_requeue_request(rq);
> >
>
> By doing so, if rq has 'passed' through bfq, then you block again bfq
> forever.
Could you explain it a bit why bfq is blocked by this way?
>
> Of course, I may be wrong, as I don't have a complete mental model of
> all what blk-mq does around bfq. But I thin that you can quickly
> check whether a hang occurs again if you add this change. In
> particular, it should happen in the USB former failure case.
USB/BFQ runs well on my parted test with this change, and this test can
trigger the IO hang issue easily on kyber or without your patch of 'block,
bfq: add requeue-request hook'.
Thanks,
Ming
