Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Subject: Re: stalling IO regression since linux 5.12, through 5.18
From:   Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <297cbb87-87aa-2e1d-1fc3-8e96c241f28f@huaweicloud.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Sep 2022 11:45:54 +0200
Cc:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
        Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        Btrfs BTRFS <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-RAID <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
        "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@huawei.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <69523E26-6A87-4C8A-A5CD-D37A28018109@linaro.org>
References: <Yv0KmT8UYos2/4SX@T590>
 <35f0d608-7448-4276-8922-19a23d8f9049@www.fastmail.com>
 <Yv2P0zyoVvz35w/m@T590>
 <568465de-5c3b-4d94-a74b-5b83ce2f942f@www.fastmail.com>
 <Yv2w+Tuhw1RAoXI5@T590>
 <9f2f608a-cd5f-4736-9e6d-07ccc2eca12c@www.fastmail.com>
 <a817431f-276f-4aab-9ff8-c3e397494339@www.fastmail.com>
 <5426d0f9-6539-477d-8feb-2b49136b960f@www.fastmail.com>
 <Yv3NIQlDL0T3lstU@T590>
 <0f731b0a-fbd5-4e7b-a3df-0ed63360c1e0@www.fastmail.com>
 <YwCGlyDMhWubqKoL@T590>
 <297cbb87-87aa-2e1d-1fc3-8e96c241f28f@huaweicloud.com>
To:     Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
Precedence: bulk


> Il giorno 1 set 2022, alle ore 09:02, Yu Kuai =
<yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> ha scritto:
>=20
> Hi, Chris
>=20
> =E5=9C=A8 2022/08/20 15:00, Ming Lei =E5=86=99=E9=81=93:
>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2022 at 03:20:25PM -0400, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022, at 1:24 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022 at 12:27:04AM -0400, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>>>>=20
>>>>>=20
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022, at 12:18 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2022, at 12:12 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2022, at 11:41 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>>>>>=20
>>>>>>>> OK, can you post the blk-mq debugfs log after you trigger it on =
v5.17?
>>>>>=20
>>>>> Same boot, 3rd log. But the load is above 300 so I kinda need to =
sysrq+b soon.
>>>>>=20
>>>>> =
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1375H558kqPTdng439rvG6LuXXWPXLToo/view?usp=
=3Dsharing
>>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> Also please test the following one too:
>>>>=20
>>>>=20
>>>> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
>>>> index 5ee62b95f3e5..d01c64be08e2 100644
>>>> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
>>>> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
>>>> @@ -1991,7 +1991,8 @@ bool blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(struct =
blk_mq_hw_ctx
>>>> *hctx, struct list_head *list,
>>>>  		if (!needs_restart ||
>>>>  		    (no_tag && =
list_empty_careful(&hctx->dispatch_wait.entry)))
>>>>  			blk_mq_run_hw_queue(hctx, true);
>>>> -		else if (needs_restart && needs_resource)
>>>> +		else if (needs_restart && (needs_resource ||
>>>> +					=
blk_mq_is_shared_tags(hctx->flags)))
>>>>  			blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue(hctx, =
BLK_MQ_RESOURCE_DELAY);
>>>>=20
>>>>  		blk_mq_update_dispatch_busy(hctx, true);
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> With just this patch on top of 5.17.0, it still hangs. I've captured =
block debugfs log:
>>> =
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ic4YHxoL9RrCdy_5FNdGfh_q_J3d_Ft0/view?usp=
=3Dsharing
>> The log is similar with before, and the only difference is RESTART =
not
>> set.
>> Also follows another patch merged to v5.18 and it fixes io stall too, =
feel free to test it:
>> 8f5fea65b06d blk-mq: avoid extending delays of active hctx from =
blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queues
>=20
> Have you tried this patch?
>=20
> We meet a similar problem in our test, and I'm pretty sure about the
> situation at the scene,
>=20
> Our test environment=EF=BC=9Anvme with bfq ioscheduler,
>=20
> How io is stalled:
>=20
> 1. hctx1 dispatch rq from bfq in service queue, bfqq becomes empty,
> dispatch somehow fails and rq is inserted to hctx1->dispatch, new run
> work is queued.
>=20
> 2. other hctx tries to dispatch rq, however, in service bfqq is
> empty, bfq_dispatch_request return NULL, thus
> blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queues is called.
>=20
> 3. for the problem described in above patch=EF=BC=8Crun work from =
"hctx1"
> can be stalled.
>=20
> Above patch should fix this io stall, however, it seems to me bfq do
> have some problems that in service bfqq doesn't expire under following
> situation:
>=20
> 1. dispatched rqs don't complete
> 2. no new rq is issued to bfq
>=20

There may be one more important problem: is bfq_finish_requeue_request
eventually invoked for the failed rq?  If it is not, then a memory
leak follows, because recounting gets unavoidably unbalanced.

In contrast, if bfq_finish_requeue_request is correctly invoked, then
no stall should occur.

Thanks,
Paolo

> Thanks,
> Kuai
>> Thanks,
>> Ming
>> .