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

[Jens Axboe]

On 11/21/2017 01:31 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

Yeah, I think so too. But thinking more about this, I'm pretty sure this
adds a bad lock dependency with hotplug. Need to verify so we ensure we
don't introduce a potential deadlock here...

-- 
Jens Axboe