Re: 4.14: WARNING: CPU: 4 PID: 2895 at block/blk-mq.c:1144 with virtio-blk (also 4.12 stable)

[Christian Borntraeger]

On 11/21/2017 09:21 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 11/21/2017 01:19 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>
>> On 11/21/2017 09:14 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 11/21/2017 01:12 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/21/2017 08:30 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>> On 11/21/2017 12:15 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/21/2017 07:39 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/21/2017 11:27 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/21/2017 11:12 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/21/2017 07:09 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/21/2017 10:27 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/21/2017 03:14 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bisect points to
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1b5a7455d345b223d3a4658a9e5fce985b7998c1 is the first bad commit
>>>>>>>>>>>> commit 1b5a7455d345b223d3a4658a9e5fce985b7998c1
>>>>>>>>>>>> Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Date:   Mon Jun 26 12:20:57 2017 +0200
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     blk-mq: Create hctx for each present CPU
>>>>>>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>>>>>>     commit 4b855ad37194f7bdbb200ce7a1c7051fecb56a08 upstream.
>>>>>>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Currently we only create hctx for online CPUs, which can lead to a lot
>>>>>>>>>>>>     of churn due to frequent soft offline / online operations.  Instead
>>>>>>>>>>>>     allocate one for each present CPU to avoid this and dramatically simplify
>>>>>>>>>>>>     the code.
>>>>>>>>>>>>     
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Reviewed-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Cc: Keith Busch <keith.busch@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Cc: linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Cc: linux-nvme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170626102058.10200-3-hch@xxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Cc: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Cc: Mike Galbraith <efault@xxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>>>     Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I wonder if we're simply not getting the masks updated correctly. I'll
>>>>>>>>>>> take a look.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Can't make it trigger here. We do init for each present CPU, which means
>>>>>>>>>> that if I offline a few CPUs here and register a queue, those still show
>>>>>>>>>> up as present (just offline) and get mapped accordingly.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From the looks of it, your setup is different. If the CPU doesn't show
>>>>>>>>>> up as present and it gets hotplugged, then I can see how this condition
>>>>>>>>>> would trigger. What environment are you running this in? We might have
>>>>>>>>>> to re-introduce the cpu hotplug notifier, right now we just monitor
>>>>>>>>>> for a dead cpu and handle that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am not doing a hot unplug and the replug, I use KVM and add a previously
>>>>>>>>> not available CPU.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> in libvirt/virsh speak:
>>>>>>>>>   <vcpu placement='static' current='1'>4</vcpu>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So that's why we run into problems. It's not present when we load the device,
>>>>>>>> but becomes present and online afterwards.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Christoph, we used to handle this just fine, your patch broke it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'll see if I can come up with an appropriate fix.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you try the below?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does prevent the crash but it seems that the new CPU is not "used " after the hotplug for mq:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> output with 2 cpus:
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/hctx0
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/hctx0/cpu0
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/hctx0/cpu0/completed
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/hctx0/cpu0/merged
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/hctx0/cpu0/dispatched
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/hctx0/cpu0/rq_list
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/hctx0/active
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/hctx0/run
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/hctx0/queued
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/hctx0/dispatched
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/hctx0/io_poll
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/hctx0/sched_tags_bitmap
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/hctx0/sched_tags
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/hctx0/tags_bitmap
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/hctx0/tags
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/hctx0/ctx_map
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/hctx0/busy
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/hctx0/dispatch
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/hctx0/flags
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/hctx0/state
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/sched
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/sched/dispatch
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/sched/starved
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/sched/batching
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/sched/write_next_rq
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/sched/write_fifo_list
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/sched/read_next_rq
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/sched/read_fifo_list
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/write_hints
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/state
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/requeue_list
>>>>>> /sys/kernel/debug/block/vda/poll_stat
>>>>>
>>>>> Try this, basically just a revert.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, seems to work.
>>>>
>>>> Tested-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Great, thanks for testing.
>>>
>>>> Do you know why the original commit made it into 4.12 stable? After all
>>>> it has no Fixes tag and no cc stable-
>>>
>>> I was wondering the same thing when you said it was in 4.12.stable and
>>> not in 4.12 release. That patch should absolutely not have gone into
>>> stable, it's not marked as such and it's not fixing a problem that is
>>> stable worthy. In fact, it's causing a regression...
>>>
>>> Greg? Upstream commit is mentioned higher up, start of the email.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Forgot to cc Greg?
> 
> I did, thanks for doing that. Now I wonder how to mark this patch,
> as we should revert it from kernels that have the bad commit. 4.12
> is fine, 4.12.later-stable is not.
> 

I think we should tag it with:

Fixes: 4b855ad37194 ("blk-mq: Create hctx for each present CPU")

which should bring it into 4.13 stable and 4.14 stable. 4.12 stable seems EOL anyway.