Re: [PATCH v2] blk-mq: release scheduler resource when request complete

[Jens Axboe]

On 8/17/23 11:17 AM, Chengming Zhou wrote:
> On 2023/8/17 23:29, Chengming Zhou wrote:
>> On 2023/8/17 22:50, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>> On 8/17/23 07:41, kernel test robot wrote:
>>>> [  222.622837][ T2216] statistics for priority 1: i 276 m 0 d 276 c 278
>>>> [ 222.629307][ T2216] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2216 at block/mq-deadline.c:680 dd_exit_sched (block/mq-deadline.c:680 (discriminator 3))
>>>
>>> The above information shows that dd_inserted_request() has been called
>>> 276 times and also that dd_finish_request() has been called 278 times.
>>
>> Thanks much for your help.
>>
>> This patch indeed introduced a regression, postflush requests will be completed
>> twice, so here dd_finish_request() is more than dd_inserted_request().
>>
>> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
>> index a8c63bef8ff1..7cd47ffc04ce 100644
>> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
>> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
>> @@ -686,8 +686,10 @@ static void blk_mq_finish_request(struct request *rq)
>>  {
>>         struct request_queue *q = rq->q;
>>
>> -       if (rq->rq_flags & RQF_USE_SCHED)
>> +       if (rq->rq_flags & RQF_USE_SCHED) {
>>                 q->elevator->type->ops.finish_request(rq);
>> +               rq->rq_flags &= ~RQF_USE_SCHED;
>> +       }
>>  }
>>
> 
> I just tried to run LKP and xfstests, firstly failed to run LKP on my server
> which seems to miss some dependencies. Then I ran xfstests successfully.
> 
> But xfstests generic/704 always pass and no WARN in dmesg. (I don't know why,
> maybe my server settings are some different from the test robot.)
> 
> So I try to reproduce it manually. Steps:
> 
> ```
> echo mq-deadline > /sys/block/sdb/queue/scheduler
> 
> mkfs.ext4 /dev/sdb
> mount /dev/sdb /fs/sdb
> cd /fs/sdb
> stress-ng --symlink 4 --timeout 60
> 
> echo none > /sys/block/sdb/queue/scheduler
> ```
> 
> This way the WARNING in mq-deadline can be reproduced easily.
> 
> Then retest with the diff, mq-deadline WARNING still happened... So there
> are still other requests which have RQF_USE_SCHED flag completed without
> being inserted into elevator.
> 
> Will use some tracing and look again.

Ah missed this, thanks for doing this testing. I'll wait for an update
version. We can just fold in whatever change we need, and most likely
just push the patch to next week rather than send off a pull request for
this week. It's the only important thing pending on the block side.

-- 
Jens Axboe