aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/block
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorPaolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>2021-05-12 11:43:52 +0200
committerJens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>2021-05-12 07:39:23 -0600
commit7ea96eefb0097d243af62fc672be9f17b10338b3 (patch)
tree89e54587423d5ac69567b2bdbcd51c859cbf9bcb /block
parente9f4eee9a0023ba22db9560d4cc6ee63f933dae8 (diff)
block, bfq: avoid circular stable merges
BFQ may merge a new bfq_queue, stably, with the last bfq_queue created. In particular, BFQ first waits a little bit for some I/O to flow inside the new queue, say Q2, if this is needed to understand whether it is better or worse to merge Q2 with the last queue created, say Q1. This delayed stable merge is performed by assigning bic->stable_merge_bfqq = Q1, for the bic associated with Q1. Yet, while waiting for some I/O to flow in Q2, a non-stable queue merge of Q2 with Q1 may happen, causing the bic previously associated with Q2 to be associated with exactly Q1 (bic->bfqq = Q1). After that, Q2 and Q1 may happen to be split, and, in the split, Q1 may happen to be recycled as a non-shared bfq_queue. In that case, Q1 may then happen to undergo a stable merge with the bfq_queue pointed by bic->stable_merge_bfqq. Yet bic->stable_merge_bfqq still points to Q1. So Q1 would be merged with itself. This commit fixes this error by intercepting this situation, and canceling the schedule of the stable merge. Fixes: 430a67f9d616 ("block, bfq: merge bursts of newly-created queues") Signed-off-by: Pietro Pedroni <pedroni.pietro.96@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210512094352.85545-2-paolo.valente@linaro.org Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Diffstat (limited to 'block')
-rw-r--r--block/bfq-iosched.c31
1 files changed, 29 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
index 59b2499d3f8b..acd1f881273e 100644
--- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
+++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
@@ -372,9 +372,38 @@ struct bfq_queue *bic_to_bfqq(struct bfq_io_cq *bic, bool is_sync)
return bic->bfqq[is_sync];
}
+static void bfq_put_stable_ref(struct bfq_queue *bfqq);
+
void bic_set_bfqq(struct bfq_io_cq *bic, struct bfq_queue *bfqq, bool is_sync)
{
+ /*
+ * If bfqq != NULL, then a non-stable queue merge between
+ * bic->bfqq and bfqq is happening here. This causes troubles
+ * in the following case: bic->bfqq has also been scheduled
+ * for a possible stable merge with bic->stable_merge_bfqq,
+ * and bic->stable_merge_bfqq == bfqq happens to
+ * hold. Troubles occur because bfqq may then undergo a split,
+ * thereby becoming eligible for a stable merge. Yet, if
+ * bic->stable_merge_bfqq points exactly to bfqq, then bfqq
+ * would be stably merged with itself. To avoid this anomaly,
+ * we cancel the stable merge if
+ * bic->stable_merge_bfqq == bfqq.
+ */
bic->bfqq[is_sync] = bfqq;
+
+ if (bfqq && bic->stable_merge_bfqq == bfqq) {
+ /*
+ * Actually, these same instructions are executed also
+ * in bfq_setup_cooperator, in case of abort or actual
+ * execution of a stable merge. We could avoid
+ * repeating these instructions there too, but if we
+ * did so, we would nest even more complexity in this
+ * function.
+ */
+ bfq_put_stable_ref(bic->stable_merge_bfqq);
+
+ bic->stable_merge_bfqq = NULL;
+ }
}
struct bfq_data *bic_to_bfqd(struct bfq_io_cq *bic)
@@ -2630,8 +2659,6 @@ static bool bfq_may_be_close_cooperator(struct bfq_queue *bfqq,
static bool idling_boosts_thr_without_issues(struct bfq_data *bfqd,
struct bfq_queue *bfqq);
-static void bfq_put_stable_ref(struct bfq_queue *bfqq);
-
/*
* Attempt to schedule a merge of bfqq with the currently in-service
* queue or with a close queue among the scheduled queues. Return

Privacy Policy