Re: [PATCH -next 2/2] block, bfq: make bfq_has_work() more accurate

From: yukuai (C)
Date: Thu May 12 2022 - 21:08:24 EST


在 2022/05/13 1:10, Jan Kara 写道:
On Thu 12-05-22 09:30:16, yukuai (C) wrote:
On 2022/05/11 22:08, Jan Kara wrote:
On Tue 10-05-22 21:16:29, Yu Kuai wrote:
bfq_has_work() is using busy_queues currently, which is not accurate
because bfq_queue is busy doesn't represent that it has requests. Since
bfqd aready has a counter 'queued' to record how many requests are in
bfq, use it instead of busy_queues.

Noted that bfq_has_work() can be called with 'bfqd->lock' held, thus the
lock can't be held in bfq_has_work() to protect 'bfqd->queued'.

Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>

So did you find this causing any real problem? Because bfq queue is
accounted among busy queues once bfq_add_bfqq_busy() is called. And that
happens once a new request is inserted into the queue so it should be very
similar to bfqd->queued.

Honza

Hi,

The related problem is described here:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220510112302.1215092-1-yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx/

The root cause of the panic is a linux-block problem, however, it can
be bypassed if bfq_has_work() is accurate. On the other hand,
unnecessary run_work will be triggered if bfqq stays busy:

__blk_mq_run_hw_queue
__blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests
__blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched
if (!bfq_has_work())
break;
blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queues -> run again after 3ms

Ah, I see. So it is the other way around than I thought. Due to idling
bfq_tot_busy_queues() can be greater than 0 even if there are no requests
to dispatch. Indeed. OK, the patch makes sense. But please use WRITE_ONCE
for the updates of bfqd->queued. Otherwise the READ_ONCE does not really
make sense (it can still result in some bogus value due to compiler
optimizations on the write side).

Thanks for you adivce, I'll send a new version.

Kuai