Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 14 Feb 2020 08:25:38 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To:     Salman Qazi <sqazi@google.com>
Cc:     Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@google.com>,
        Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@google.com>
Subject: Re: BLKSECDISCARD ioctl and hung tasks
Message-ID: <20200214002538.GA4907@ming.t460p>
References: <CAKUOC8VN5n+YnFLPbQWa1hKp+vOWH26FKS92R+h4EvS=e11jFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200213082643.GB9144@ming.t460p>
 <d2c77921-fdcd-4667-d21a-60700e6a2fa5@acm.org>
 <CAKUOC8U1H8qJ+95pcF-fjeu9hag3P3Wm6XiOh26uXOkvpNngZg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKUOC8U1H8qJ+95pcF-fjeu9hag3P3Wm6XiOh26uXOkvpNngZg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 11:21:37AM -0800, Salman Qazi wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 9:48 AM Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 2/13/20 12:26 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > The approach used in blk_execute_rq() can be borrowed for workaround the
> > > issue, such as:
> > >
> > > diff --git a/block/bio.c b/block/bio.c
> > > index 94d697217887..c9ce19a86de7 100644
> > > --- a/block/bio.c
> > > +++ b/block/bio.c
> > > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
> > >   #include <linux/cgroup.h>
> > >   #include <linux/blk-cgroup.h>
> > >   #include <linux/highmem.h>
> > > +#include <linux/sched/sysctl.h>
> > >
> > >   #include <trace/events/block.h>
> > >   #include "blk.h"
> > > @@ -1019,12 +1020,19 @@ static void submit_bio_wait_endio(struct bio *bio)
> > >   int submit_bio_wait(struct bio *bio)
> > >   {
> > >       DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK_MAP(done, bio->bi_disk->lockdep_map);
> > > +     unsigned long hang_check;
> > >
> > >       bio->bi_private = &done;
> > >       bio->bi_end_io = submit_bio_wait_endio;
> > >       bio->bi_opf |= REQ_SYNC;
> > >       submit_bio(bio);
> > > -     wait_for_completion_io(&done);
> > > +
> > > +     /* Prevent hang_check timer from firing at us during very long I/O */
> > > +     hang_check = sysctl_hung_task_timeout_secs;
> > > +     if (hang_check)
> > > +             while (!wait_for_completion_io_timeout(&done, hang_check * (HZ/2)));
> > > +     else
> > > +             wait_for_completion_io(&done);
> > >
> > >       return blk_status_to_errno(bio->bi_status);
> > >   }
> >
> > Instead of suppressing the hung task complaints, has it been considered
> > to use the bio splitting mechanism to make discard bios smaller? Block
> > drivers may set a limit by calling blk_queue_max_discard_segments().
> >  From block/blk-settings.c:
> >
> > /**
> >   * blk_queue_max_discard_segments - set max segments for discard
> >   * requests
> >   * @q:  the request queue for the device
> >   * @max_segments:  max number of segments
> >   *
> >   * Description:
> >   *    Enables a low level driver to set an upper limit on the number of
> >   *    segments in a discard request.
> >   **/
> > void blk_queue_max_discard_segments(struct request_queue *q,
> >                 unsigned short max_segments)
> > {
> >         q->limits.max_discard_segments = max_segments;
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(blk_queue_max_discard_segments);
> >
> 
> AFAICT, This is not actually sufficient, because the issuer of the bio
> is waiting for the entire bio, regardless of how it is split later.

Right.

> But, also there isn't a good mapping between the size of the secure
> discard and how long it will take.  If given the geometry of a flash
> device, it is not hard to construct a scenario where a relatively
> small secure discard (few thousand sectors) will take a very long time
> (multiple seconds).

It isn't strange to see such implementation, and I also see discard
request timeout.

> 
> Having said that, I don't like neutering the hung task timer either.

But it does fix the hung warning, doesn't it?

thanks,
Ming