Re: [PATCH v7 9/9] block: Avoid deadlocks with bio allocation bystacking drivers

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:37:36AM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> @@ -324,13 +342,37 @@ struct bio *bio_alloc_bioset(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nr_iovecs, struct bio_set *bs)
>  		front_pad = 0;
>  		inline_vecs = nr_iovecs;
>  	} else {
> +		/*
> +		 * generic_make_request() converts recursion to iteration; this
> +		 * means if we're running beneath it, any bios we allocate and
> +		 * submit will not be submitted (and thus freed) until after we
> +		 * return.
> +		 *
> +		 * This exposes us to a potential deadlock if we allocate
> +		 * multiple bios from the same bio_set() while running
> +		 * underneath generic_make_request(). If we were to allocate
> +		 * multiple bios (say a stacking block driver that was splitting
> +		 * bios), we would deadlock if we exhausted the mempool's
> +		 * reserve.
> +		 *
> +		 * We solve this, and guarantee forward progress, with a rescuer
> +		 * workqueue per bio_set. If we go to allocate and there are
> +		 * bios on current->bio_list, we first try the allocation
> +		 * without __GFP_WAIT; if that fails, we punt those bios we
> +		 * would be blocking to the rescuer workqueue before we retry
> +		 * with the original gfp_flags.
> +		 */
> +
> +		if (current->bio_list && !bio_list_empty(current->bio_list))
> +			gfp_mask &= ~__GFP_WAIT;
> +retry:
>  		p = mempool_alloc(bs->bio_pool, gfp_mask);
>  		front_pad = bs->front_pad;
>  		inline_vecs = BIO_INLINE_VECS;
>  	}
>  
>  	if (unlikely(!p))
> -		return NULL;
> +		goto err;
>  
>  	bio = p + front_pad;
>  	bio_init(bio);
> @@ -351,6 +393,19 @@ struct bio *bio_alloc_bioset(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nr_iovecs, struct bio_set *bs)
>  
>  err_free:
>  	mempool_free(p, bs->bio_pool);
> +err:
> +	if (gfp_mask != saved_gfp) {
> +		gfp_mask = saved_gfp;
> +
> +		spin_lock(&bs->rescue_lock);
> +		bio_list_merge(&bs->rescue_list, current->bio_list);
> +		bio_list_init(current->bio_list);
> +		spin_unlock(&bs->rescue_lock);
> +
> +		queue_work(bs->rescue_workqueue, &bs->rescue_work);
> +		goto retry;
> +	}

I wonder whether it would be easier to follow if this part is in-line
where retry: is.  All that needs to be duplicated is single
mempool_alloc() call, right?

Overall, I *think* this is correct but need to think more about it to
be sure.

Thanks!

-- 
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/