lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Nov]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH -next v2] md: synchronize flush io with array reconfiguration
From
Date
Hi,

在 2023/11/28 7:32, Song Liu 写道:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 2:16 PM Song Liu <song@kernel.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 10:54 PM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
>>>
>>> Currently rcu is used to protect iterating rdev from submit_flushes():
>>>
>>> submit_flushes remove_and_add_spares
>>> synchronize_rcu
>>> pers->hot_remove_disk()
>>> rcu_read_lock()
>>> rdev_for_each_rcu
>>> if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0)
>>> rdev->radi_disk = -1;
>>> atomic_inc(&rdev->nr_pending)
>>> rcu_read_unlock()
>>> bi = bio_alloc_bioset()
>>> bi->bi_end_io = md_end_flush
>>> bi->private = rdev
>>> submit_bio
>>> // issue io for removed rdev
>>>
>>> Fix this problem by grabbing 'acive_io' before iterating rdev, make sure
>>> that remove_and_add_spares() won't concurrent with submit_flushes().
>>>
>>> Fixes: a2826aa92e2e ("md: support barrier requests on all personalities.")
>>> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changes v2:
>>> - Add WARN_ON in case md_flush_request() is not called from
>>> md_handle_request() in future.
>>>
>>> drivers/md/md.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++------
>>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c
>>> index 86efc9c2ae56..2ffedc39edd6 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/md/md.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/md/md.c
>>> @@ -538,6 +538,9 @@ static void md_end_flush(struct bio *bio)
>>> rdev_dec_pending(rdev, mddev);
>>>
>>> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&mddev->flush_pending)) {
>>> + /* The pair is percpu_ref_tryget() from md_flush_request() */
>>> + percpu_ref_put(&mddev->active_io);
>>> +
>>> /* The pre-request flush has finished */
>>> queue_work(md_wq, &mddev->flush_work);
>>> }
>>> @@ -557,12 +560,8 @@ static void submit_flushes(struct work_struct *ws)
>>> rdev_for_each_rcu(rdev, mddev)
>>> if (rdev->raid_disk >= 0 &&
>>> !test_bit(Faulty, &rdev->flags)) {
>>> - /* Take two references, one is dropped
>>> - * when request finishes, one after
>>> - * we reclaim rcu_read_lock
>>> - */
>>> struct bio *bi;
>>> - atomic_inc(&rdev->nr_pending);
>>> +
>>> atomic_inc(&rdev->nr_pending);
>>> rcu_read_unlock();
>>> bi = bio_alloc_bioset(rdev->bdev, 0,
>>> @@ -573,7 +572,6 @@ static void submit_flushes(struct work_struct *ws)
>>> atomic_inc(&mddev->flush_pending);
>>> submit_bio(bi);
>>> rcu_read_lock();
>>> - rdev_dec_pending(rdev, mddev);
>>> }
>>> rcu_read_unlock();
>>> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&mddev->flush_pending))
>>> @@ -626,6 +624,18 @@ bool md_flush_request(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio *bio)
>>> /* new request after previous flush is completed */
>>> if (ktime_after(req_start, mddev->prev_flush_start)) {
>>> WARN_ON(mddev->flush_bio);
>>> + /*
>>> + * Grab a reference to make sure mddev_suspend() will wait for
>>> + * this flush to be done.
>>> + *
>>> + * md_flush_reqeust() is called under md_handle_request() and
>>> + * 'active_io' is already grabbed, hence percpu_ref_tryget()
>>> + * won't fail, percpu_ref_tryget_live() can't be used because
>>> + * percpu_ref_kill() can be called by mddev_suspend()
>>> + * concurrently.
>>> + */
>>> + if (WARN_ON(percpu_ref_tryget(&mddev->active_io)))
>>
>> This should be "if (!WARN_ON(..))", right?

Sorry for the mistake, this actually should be:

if (WARN_ON(!percpu_ref_tryget(...))
>>
>> Song
>>
>>> + percpu_ref_get(&mddev->active_io);
>
> Actually, we can just use percpu_ref_get(), no?

Yes, we can, but if someone else doesn't call md_flush_request() under
md_handle_request() in the fulture, there will be problem and
percpu_ref_get() can't catch this, do you think it'll make sense to
prevent such case?

Thanks,
Kuai

>
> Thanks,
> Song
> .
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-11-28 03:13    [W:0.065 / U:0.428 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site