On Sun, Jan 25, 2026 at 08:35:20PM +0200, Alexander Atanasov wrote:
> On 25.01.26 17:28, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 05:00:33PM +0200, Alexander Atanasov wrote:
> > >
> > >
>
> [snip]
>
> > Can you test the following patch and see if re-order still can happen?
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/test_generic_01.sh
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/test_generic_01.sh
> > index 26cf3c7ceeb5..26d5e52ece29 100755
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/test_generic_01.sh
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/test_generic_01.sh
> > @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ if ! _have_program fio; then
> > exit "$UBLK_SKIP_CODE"
> > fi
> > -_prep_test "null" "sequential io order"
> > +_prep_test "null" "ublk dispatch won't reorder IO"
> > dev_id=$(_add_ublk_dev -t null)
> > _check_add_dev $TID $?
> > @@ -39,9 +39,13 @@ fio --name=write_seq \
> > ERR_CODE=$?
> > kill "$btrace_pid"
> > wait
> > -if grep -q "io_out_of_order" "$UBLK_TMP"; then
> > - cat "$UBLK_TMP"
> > +
> > +# Check for out-of-order completions detected by bpftrace
> > +if grep -q "^out_of_order:" "$UBLK_TMP"; then
> > + echo "I/O reordering detected:"
> > + grep "^out_of_order:" "$UBLK_TMP"
> > ERR_CODE=255
> > fi
> > +
> > _cleanup_test "null"
> > _show_result $TID $ERR_CODE
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/trace/seq_io.bt
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/trace/seq_io.bt
> > index b2f60a92b118..60ac40e66606 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/trace/seq_io.bt
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/trace/seq_io.bt
> > @@ -2,23 +2,45 @@
> > $1: dev_t
> > $2: RWBS
> > $3: strlen($2)
> > +
> > + Track request order between block_io_start and block_rq_complete.
> > + For each request, record its start sequence number and verify
> > + completions happen in the same order.
> > */
> > +
> > BEGIN {
> > - @last_rw[$1, str($2)] = (uint64)0;
> > + @start_seq = (uint64)0;
> > + @complete_seq = (uint64)0;
> > + @out_of_order = (uint64)0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +tracepoint:block:block_io_start
> > +{
> > + if ((int64)args.dev == $1 && !strncmp(args.rwbs, str($2), $3)) {
> > + @start_order[args.sector] = @start_seq;
> > + @start_seq = @start_seq + 1;
> > + }
> > }
> > +
> > tracepoint:block:block_rq_complete
> > {
> > - $dev = $1;
> > if ((int64)args.dev == $1 && !strncmp(args.rwbs, str($2), $3)) {
> > - $last = @last_rw[$dev, str($2)];
> > - if ((uint64)args.sector != $last) {
> > - printf("io_out_of_order: exp %llu actual %llu\n",
> > - args.sector, $last);
> > + $expected_order = @start_order[args.sector];
> > + if ($expected_order != @complete_seq) {
> > + printf("out_of_order: sector %llu started at seq %llu
> > but completed at seq %llu\n",
> > + args.sector, $expected_order, @complete_seq);
> > + @out_of_order = @out_of_order + 1;
> > }
> > - @last_rw[$dev, str($2)] = (args.sector + args.nr_sector);
> > + delete(@start_order[args.sector]);
> > + @complete_seq = @complete_seq + 1;
> > }
> > }
> > END {
> > - clear(@last_rw);
> > + printf("total_start: %llu total_complete: %llu out_of_order: %llu\n",
> > + @start_seq, @complete_seq, @out_of_order);
> > + clear(@start_order);
> > + clear(@start_seq);
> > + clear(@complete_seq);
> > + clear(@out_of_order);
> > }
>
>
> First run after reboot always fails:
>
> ./test_generic_01.sh
> ublk selftest: generic_01 starting at 2026-01-25T19:08:47+02:00
> I/O reordering detected:
> out_of_order: sector 112040 started at seq 88 but completed at seq 0
> out_of_order: sector 112048 started at seq 89 but completed at seq 1
> out_of_order: sector 112056 started at seq 90 but completed at seq 2
> out_of_order: sector 112064 started at seq 91 but completed at seq 3
> out_of_order: sector 112072 started at seq 92 but completed at seq 4
> out_of_order: sector 112080 started at seq 93 but completed at seq 5
> out_of_order: sector 112088 started at seq 94 but completed at seq 6
> out_of_order: sector 112096 started at seq 95 but completed at seq 7
> out_of_order: sector 112104 started at seq 96 but completed at seq 8
> out_of_order: sector 112112 started at seq 97 but completed at seq 9
> out_of_order: sector 112120 started at seq 98 but completed at seq 10
> out_of_order: sector 112128 started at seq 99 but completed at seq 11
In the 1st bpf attachment, fio may be started between attaching
block_start_req and block_complete_req. Maybe the following patch can
solve it:
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/test_generic_01.sh
b/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/test_generic_01.sh
index 26cf3c7ceeb5..15cea9e55e1c 100755
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/test_generic_01.sh
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/test_generic_01.sh
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ if ! _have_program fio; then
exit "$UBLK_SKIP_CODE"
fi
-_prep_test "null" "sequential io order"
+_prep_test "null" "ublk dispatch won't reorder IO"
dev_id=$(_add_ublk_dev -t null)
_check_add_dev $TID $?
@@ -21,15 +21,20 @@ _check_add_dev $TID $?
dev_t=$(_get_disk_dev_t "$dev_id")
bpftrace trace/seq_io.bt "$dev_t" "W" 1 > "$UBLK_TMP" 2>&1 &
btrace_pid=$!
-sleep 2
-if ! kill -0 "$btrace_pid" > /dev/null 2>&1; then
+# Wait for bpftrace probes to be attached (BEGIN block prints BPFTRACE_READY)
+for _ in $(seq 100); do
+ grep -q "BPFTRACE_READY" "$UBLK_TMP" 2>/dev/null && break
+ sleep 0.1
+done
+
+if ! kill -0 "$btrace_pid" 2>/dev/null; then
_cleanup_test "null"
exit "$UBLK_SKIP_CODE"
fi
-# run fio over this ublk disk
-fio --name=write_seq \
+# run fio over this ublk disk (pinned to CPU 0)
+taskset -c 0 fio --name=write_seq \
--filename=/dev/ublkb"${dev_id}" \
--ioengine=libaio --iodepth=16 \
--rw=write \
@@ -39,9 +44,13 @@ fio --name=write_seq \
ERR_CODE=$?
kill "$btrace_pid"
wait
-if grep -q "io_out_of_order" "$UBLK_TMP"; then
- cat "$UBLK_TMP"
+
+# Check for out-of-order completions detected by bpftrace
+if grep -q "^out_of_order:" "$UBLK_TMP"; then
+ echo "I/O reordering detected:"
+ grep "^out_of_order:" "$UBLK_TMP"
ERR_CODE=255
fi
+
_cleanup_test "null"
_show_result $TID $ERR_CODE
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/trace/seq_io.bt
b/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/trace/seq_io.bt
index b2f60a92b118..8ebe13d24c67 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/trace/seq_io.bt
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/trace/seq_io.bt
@@ -2,23 +2,64 @@
$1: dev_t
$2: RWBS
$3: strlen($2)
+
+ Track request order between block_io_start and block_rq_complete.
+ For each request, record its start sequence number and verify
+ completions happen in the same order.
+
+ Sequence starts at 1 so that 0 means "never seen" (bpftrace maps
+ return 0 for missing keys). On first valid completion, sync
+ complete_seq to handle probe attachment races.
+
+ block_rq_complete is listed first to ensure it's attached before
+ block_io_start, reducing the window for missed completions.
*/
+
BEGIN {
- @last_rw[$1, str($2)] = (uint64)0;
+ @start_seq = (uint64)1;
+ @complete_seq = (uint64)0;
+ @out_of_order = (uint64)0;
+ /* Initialize map type with dummy entry */
+ @start_order[0] = (uint64)0;
+ delete(@start_order[0]);
+ printf("BPFTRACE_READY\n");
}
+
tracepoint:block:block_rq_complete
{
- $dev = $1;
if ((int64)args.dev == $1 && !strncmp(args.rwbs, str($2), $3)) {
- $last = @last_rw[$dev, str($2)];
- if ((uint64)args.sector != $last) {
- printf("io_out_of_order: exp %llu actual %llu\n",
- args.sector, $last);
+ $expected = @start_order[args.sector];
+ if ($expected > 0) {
+ /* Sync complete_seq on first valid completion */
+ if (@complete_seq == 0) {
+ @complete_seq = $expected;
+ }
+
+ if ($expected != @complete_seq) {
+ printf("out_of_order: sector %llu started at
seq %llu but completed at seq %llu\n",
+ args.sector, $expected, @complete_seq);
+ @out_of_order = @out_of_order + 1;
+ }
+ delete(@start_order[args.sector]);
+ @complete_seq = @complete_seq + 1;
}
- @last_rw[$dev, str($2)] = (args.sector + args.nr_sector);
+ /* $expected == 0 means we never saw this sector start, skip it
*/
+ }
+}
+
+tracepoint:block:block_io_start
+{
+ if ((int64)args.dev == $1 && !strncmp(args.rwbs, str($2), $3)) {
+ @start_order[args.sector] = @start_seq;
+ @start_seq = @start_seq + 1;
}
}
END {
- clear(@last_rw);
+ printf("total_start: %llu total_complete: %llu out_of_order: %llu\n",
+ @start_seq - 1, @complete_seq, @out_of_order);
+ clear(@start_order);
+ clear(@start_seq);
+ clear(@complete_seq);
+ clear(@out_of_order);
}
Thanks,
Ming
