Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <[email protected]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not completely sure I got the cause for this one completely right.
> Still, it does looks like the correct fix and a good improvement in the
> overall, so I'm making it an RFC for now to gather some feedback.
>
> Let me hear your thoughts.
ping
>
> -- >8 --
>
> When notifying blk-mq about CPU removals while running IO, we risk
> racing the hctx->cpumask update with blk_mq_hctx_next_cpu, and end up
> scheduling a dead cpu to execute hctx->run_{,delayed_}work. As a
> result, kblockd_schedule_delayed_work_on() may schedule another cpu
> outside of hctx->cpumask, which triggers the following warning at
> __blk_mq_run_hw_queue:
>
> WARN_ON(!cpumask_test_cpu(raw_smp_processor_id(), hctx->cpumask));
>
> This patch makes the issue much more unlikely to happen, as it makes
> blk_mq_hctx_next_cpu aware of dead cpus, and triggers the round-robin
> code, despite of remaining batch processing time. Thus, in case we
> offline a cpu in the middle of its batch processing time, we no longer
> waste time scheduling it here, and just move through to the next cpu in
> the mask.
>
> The warning may still be triggered, though, since this is not the only
> case that may cause the queue to schedule on a dead cpu. But this fixes
> the common case, which is the remaining batch processing time of a
> sudden dead cpu, which makes the issue much more unlikely to happen.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <[email protected]>
> Cc: Brian King <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> ---
> block/blk-mq.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> index c27bb37..a2cb64c 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> @@ -858,7 +858,8 @@ static int blk_mq_hctx_next_cpu(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx
> *hctx)
> if (hctx->queue->nr_hw_queues == 1)
> return WORK_CPU_UNBOUND;
>
> - if (--hctx->next_cpu_batch <= 0) {
> + if (--hctx->next_cpu_batch <= 0 ||
> + !cpumask_test_cpu(hctx->next_cpu, cpu_online_mask)) {
> int cpu = hctx->next_cpu, next_cpu;
>
> next_cpu = cpumask_next(hctx->next_cpu, hctx->cpumask);
> @@ -868,7 +869,8 @@ static int blk_mq_hctx_next_cpu(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx
> *hctx)
> hctx->next_cpu = next_cpu;
> hctx->next_cpu_batch = BLK_MQ_CPU_WORK_BATCH;
>
> - return cpu;
> + return (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpu_online_mask)) ?
> + cpu : blk_mq_hctx_next_cpu(hctx);
> }
>
> return hctx->next_cpu;
--
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
