Re: [PATCH] block: __elv_next_request() shouldn't call into theelevator if bypassing

[Frank Mayhar]

On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 15:26 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> request_queue bypassing is used to suppress higher-level function of a
> request_queue so that they can be switched, reconfigured and shut
> down.  A request_queue does the followings while bypassing.
> 
> * bypasses elevator and io_cq association and queues requests directly
>   to the FIFO dispatch queue.
> 
> * bypasses block cgroup request_list lookup and always uses the root
>   request_list.
> 
> Once confirmed to be bypassing, specific elevator and block cgroup
> policy implementations can assume that nothing is in flight for them
> and perform various operations which would be dangerous otherwise.
> 
> Such confirmation is acheived by short-circuiting all new requests
> directly to the dispatch queue and waiting for all the requests which
> were issued before to finish.  Unfortunately, while the request
> allocating and draining sides were properly handled, we forgot to
> actually plug the request dispatch path.  Even after bypassing mode is
> confirmed, if the attached driver tries to fetch a request and the
> dispatch queue is empty, __elv_next_request() would invoke the current
> elevator's elevator_dispatch_fn() callback.  As all in-flight requests
> were drained, the elevator wouldn't contain any request but once
> bypass is confirmed we don't even know whether the elevator is even
> there.  It might be in the process of being switched and half torn
> down.
> 
> Frank Mayhar reports that this actually happened while switching
> elevators, leading to an oops.
> 
> Let's fix it by making __elv_next_request() avoid invoking the
> elevator_dispatch_fn() callback if the queue is bypassing.  It already
> avoids invoking the callback if the queue is dying.  As a dying queue
> is guaranteed to be bypassing, we can simply replace blk_queue_dying()
> check with blk_queue_bypass().
> 
> Reported-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> References: http://lkml.kernel.org/g/1390319905.20232.38.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ---
> Hello,
> 
> Sorry about the delay.  Frank, if your test is still holding up, can
> you please reply with Tested-by?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
>  block/blk.h |    2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/blk.h b/block/blk.h
> index c90e1d8..d23b415 100644
> --- a/block/blk.h
> +++ b/block/blk.h
> @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@ static inline struct request *__elv_next_request(struct request_queue *q)
>  			q->flush_queue_delayed = 1;
>  			return NULL;
>  		}
> -		if (unlikely(blk_queue_dying(q)) ||
> +		if (unlikely(blk_queue_bypass(q)) ||
>  		    !q->elevator->type->ops.elevator_dispatch_fn(q, 0))
>  			return NULL;
>  	}

Tested-by: Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@xxxxxxxxxx>
-- 
Frank Mayhar
310-460-4042

--
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/