Re: [GIT PULL] Networking for v6.9

[Jens Axboe]

On 3/12/24 3:11 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 13:47, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> With your tree as of 65d287c7eb1d it gets to prompt but dies soon after
>> when prod services kick in (dunno what rpm Kdump does but says iocost
>> so adding Tejun):
> 
> Both of your traces are timers that seem to either lock up in ioc_now():
> 
>    https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240312133427.1a744844@xxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> and now it looks like ioc_timer_fn():
> 
>   https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240312134739.248e6bd3@xxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> But in neither case does it actually look like it's a lockup on a *lock*.
> 
> IOW, the NMI isn't happening on some spin_lock sequence or anything like that.
> 
> Yes, ioc_now() could have been looping on the seq read-lock if the
> sequence number was odd. But the writers do seem to be done with
> interrupts disabled, plus then you wouldn't have this lockup in
> ioc_timer_fn, so it's probably not that.
> 
> And yes, ioc_timer_fn() does take locks, but again, that doesn't seem
> to be where it is hanging.
> 
> So it smells like it's an endless loop in ioc_timer_fn() to me, or
> perhaps retriggering the timer itself infinitely.
> 
> Which would then explain both of those traces (that endless loop would
> call ioc_now() as part of it).
> 
> The blk-iocost.c code itself hasn't changed, but the timer code has
> gone through big changes.
> 
> That said, there's a more blk-related change: da4c8c3d0975 ("block:
> cache current nsec time in struct blk_plug").
> 
> *And* your second dump is from that
> 
>         period_vtime = now.vnow - ioc->period_at_vtime;
>         if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!period_vtime)) {
> 
> so it smells like the blk-iocost code is just completely confused by
> the time caching. Jens?
> 
> Jakub, it might be worth seeing if just reverting that commit
> da4c8c3d0975 makes the problem go away. Otherwise a bisect might be
> needed...

Hmm, I wonder if the below will fix it. At least from the timer side,
we should not be using the cached clock.


diff --git a/block/blk-iocost.c b/block/blk-iocost.c
index 9a85bfbbc45a..646b50e1c914 100644
--- a/block/blk-iocost.c
+++ b/block/blk-iocost.c
@@ -1044,7 +1044,7 @@ static void ioc_now(struct ioc *ioc, struct ioc_now *now)
 	unsigned seq;
 	u64 vrate;
 
-	now->now_ns = blk_time_get_ns();
+	now->now_ns = ktime_get_ns();
 	now->now = ktime_to_us(now->now_ns);
 	vrate = atomic64_read(&ioc->vtime_rate);
 

-- 
Jens Axboe