Re: [PATCH 05/10] block: remove per-queue plugging

[Jens Axboe]

On 2011-03-04 23:27, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04 2011 at  4:50pm -0500,
> Jens Axboe <jaxboe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> On 2011-03-04 22:43, Mike Snitzer wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 04 2011 at  8:02am -0500,
>>> Shaohua Li <shli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2011/3/4 Mike Snitzer <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>> I'm now hitting a lockdep issue, while running a 'for-2.6.39/stack-plug'
>>>>> kernel, when I try an fsync heavy workload to a request-based mpath
>>>>> device (the kernel ultimately goes down in flames, I've yet to look at
>>>>> the crashdump I took)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
>>>>> 2.6.38-rc6-snitm+ #2
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> ffsb/3110 is trying to acquire lock:
>>>>>  (&(&q->__queue_lock)->rlock){..-...}, at: [<ffffffff811b4c4d>] flush_plug_list+0xbc/0x135
>>>>>
>>>>> but task is already holding lock:
>>>>>  (&rq->lock){-.-.-.}, at: [<ffffffff8137132f>] schedule+0x16a/0x725
>>>>>
>>>>> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>>>> I hit this too. Can you check if attached debug patch fixes it?
>>>
>>> Fixes it for me.
>>
>> The preempt bit in block/ should not be needed. Can you check whether
>> it's the moving of the flush in sched.c that does the trick?
> 
> It works if I leave out the blk-core.c preempt change too.
> 
>> The problem with the current spot is that it's under the runqueue lock.
>> The problem with the modified variant is that we flush even if the task
>> is not going to sleep. We really just want to flush when it is going to
>> move out of the runqueue, but we want to do that outside of the runqueue
>> lock as well.
> 
> OK. So we still need a proper fix for this issue.

Apparently so. Peter/Ingo, please shoot this one down in flames.
Summary:

- Need a way to trigger this flushing when a task is going to sleep
- It's currently done right before calling deactivate_task(). We know
  the task is going to sleep here, but it's also under the runqueue
  lock. Not good.
- In the new location, it's not completely clear to me whether we can
  safely deref 'prev' or not. The usage of prev_state would seem to
  indicate that we cannot, and as far as I can tell, prev could at this
  point already potentially be running on another CPU.

Help? Peter, we talked about this in Tokyo in September. Initial
suggestion was to use preempt notifiers, which we can't because:

- runqueue lock is also held
- It's not unconditionally available, depends on config.

diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index e806446..8581ad3 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -2826,6 +2826,14 @@ static void finish_task_switch(struct rq *rq, struct task_struct *prev)
 #endif /* __ARCH_WANT_INTERRUPTS_ON_CTXSW */
 	finish_lock_switch(rq, prev);
 
+	/*
+	 * If this task has IO plugged, make sure it
+	 * gets flushed out to the devices before we go
+	 * to sleep
+	 */
+	if (prev_state != TASK_RUNNING)
+		blk_flush_plug(prev);
+
 	fire_sched_in_preempt_notifiers(current);
 	if (mm)
 		mmdrop(mm);
@@ -3973,14 +3981,6 @@ need_resched_nonpreemptible:
 				if (to_wakeup)
 					try_to_wake_up_local(to_wakeup);
 			}
-			/*
-			 * If this task has IO plugged, make sure it
-			 * gets flushed out to the devices before we go
-			 * to sleep
-			 */
-			blk_flush_plug(prev);
-			BUG_ON(prev->plug && !list_empty(&prev->plug->list));
-
 			deactivate_task(rq, prev, DEQUEUE_SLEEP);
 		}
 		switch_count = &prev->nvcsw;

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/