On 2022/8/29 13:56, Ming Lei wrote:

On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 12:00:49PM +0800, Ziyang Zhang wrote:

quoted

On 2022/8/29 10:08, Ming Lei wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 01:47:35PM +0800, ZiyangZhang wrote:

quoted

ublk_drv is a driver simply passes all blk-mq rqs to ublksrv[1] in
userspace. For each ublk queue, there is one ubq_daemon(pthread).
All ubq_daemons share the same process which opens /dev/ublkcX.
The ubq_daemon code infinitely loops on io_uring_enter() to
send/receive io_uring cmds which pass information of blk-mq
rqs.

Now, if one ubq_daemon(pthread) or the process crashes, ublk_drv
must abort the dying ubq, stop the device and release everything.
This is not a good choice in practice because users do not expect
aborted requests, I/O errors and a released device. They may want
a recovery machenism so that no requests are aborted and no I/O
error occurs. Anyway, users just want everything works as uaual.

I understand the requirement is that both /dev/ublkbN and /dev/ublkcN
won't be deleted & re-added from user viewpoint after user recovery,
so the device context won't be lost.

Yes, after the 'process' is killed or crashed(such as segmentation fault)
both /dev/ublkb0 and /dev/ublkc0 is not deleted.

quoted

quoted

This RFC patchset implements USER_RECOVERY support. If the process
crashes, we allow ublksrv to provide new process and ubq_daemons.
We do not support single ubq_daemon(pthread) recovery because a
pthread rarely crashes.

Recovery feature is quite useful for products do not expect to
return any I/O error to frontend users.

That looks one very ideal requirement. To be honest, no any block driver
can guarantee that 100%, so it is just one soft requirement?

Cause memory allocation may fail, network may be disconnected,
re-creating pthread or process may fail too, ...

Yes, I know there are many other problem which may cause a failure.

The recovery mechanism only guarantees that rqs sent to ublksrv
before crash are not aborted. Instead, ublk_drv re-issues the request
itself and fio does not konw about it. Of course the backend must
tolerate a double-write/read.

My comment is for 'do not expect to return any I/O error to frontend users',
and I still think it is just one soft requirement, and no one can
guarantee there isn't any error for frontend users really.

Yes, I get your point now. Indeed it is just one soft requirement.

quoted

quoted

quoted

In detail, we support
this scenario:
(1) The /dev/ublkc0 is opened by process 0;
(2) Fio is running on /dev/ublkb0 exposed by ublk_drv and all
    rqs are handled by process 0.
(3) Process 0 suddenly crashes(e.g. segfault);
(4) Fio is still running and submit IOs(but these IOs cannot
    complete now)
(5) User recovers with process 1 and attach it to /dev/ublkc0
(6) All rqs are handled by process 1 now and IOs can be
    completed now.

Note: The backend must tolerate double-write because we re-issue
a rq sent to the old(dying) process before. We allow users to
choose whether re-issue these rqs or not, please see patch 7 for
more detail.

We provide a sample script here to simulate the above steps:

***************************script***************************
LOOPS=10

__ublk_get_pid() {
	pid=`./ublk list -n 0 | grep "pid" | awk '{print $7}'`
	echo $pid
}

ublk_recover_kill()
{
	for CNT in `seq $LOOPS`; do
		dmesg -C
                pid=`__ublk_get_pid`
                echo -e "*** kill $pid now ***"
		kill -9 $pid
		sleep 2
                echo -e "*** recover now ***"
                ./ublk recover -n 0

The current behavior is that /dev/ublkb* is removed after device is
aborted because ubq daemon is killed.

What if 'ublk recover' command isn't sent? So the current behavior
without recovery is changed? Or just changed with this feature enabled?

No, I do not change the default behavior. You can verify this by running
generic/002 and generic/003. These tests passes with either recovery enabled
or disabled.


(1) With recovery disabled, the monitor_work scheduled periodically or
    STOP_DEV ctrl-cmd issued manually can cleanup everything and remove the
    gendisk.

(2)With recovery enabled, the monitor_work is not scheduled anymore, see
   patch 9. So after a crash，all resources are still in kernel.
   Then, there are two options for a user:
    (a) You don't want to recover it, so just send STOP_DEV ctrl-cmd. This will
        schedule monitor_work once and cleanup everything. Please see patch 5.

But what if people sends nothing and starts to reboot, then hang forever without
monitor_work involved.

Emm... you are right. But here is a conflict: I must reserve resources for a
potential recovery mission, but I may hang if the user directly reboots...

What about add a systemd service?

quoted

    (b) You want to recover it, so just send START_RECOVERY ctrl-cmd. Then you
        HAVE TO start a new process and send END_RECOVERY.

Note: Actually I am thinking what if a user has sent START_RECOVERY but he fails
to start a new process. I have a rough idea: just abort all rqs after we unqiuesce
the request queue. But that is not included in this RFC patchset because I
want to make it simpler. Maybe we can consider it later?

It is pretty easy to fail all in-queue requests when user recovery
can't move on.

Actually I wrote some code not included in the patchset:

(0) Now the request_queue is quiesced since we are after START_RECOVERY.

(1) mark all ubqs as 'force_abort', which makes ublk_queue_rq() fail
    all IOs before calling blk_mq_atart_request() after unqiescing
    request_queue.

(2) end(abort) all rqs inflight. Note that set of inflight does not change
    since we are quiesced.

(3) unqiesce request_queue. Note that set of inflight rqs does not change
    since we marked all ubqs as 'force_abort'. We have to unqiesce or del_gendisk()
    will hang forever(not sure I am correct).

(4) del_gendisk()

(5) complete ALL ioucmds by calling io_uring_cmd_done()

But this is really a ugly implementation since I do not consider:

(1) After START_RECOVERY, what if the new process crashes 'before' all FETCH_REQ
    cmds are sent(some ubqs are ready while others are not).

(2) After START_RECOVERY, what if the new process crashes 'after' all FETCH_REQ
    cmds are sent but 'before' END_RECOVERY.


Ming, I suggest that this could be added in a future patch because I want to make
this one simple and easy to understand :)

If you do not agree, I can add this in next version though I really think we should
be more careful.

quoted

quoted

BTW, I do not mean the change isn't reasonable, but suggest to document
the user visible change, so it can get reviewed from either user
viewpoint and technical point.

quoted

		sleep 4
	done
}

ublk_test()
{
        dmesg -C
        echo -e "*** add ublk device ***"
        ./ublk add -t null -d 4 -i 1
        sleep 2
        echo -e "*** start fio ***"
        fio --bs=4k \
            --filename=/dev/ublkb0 \
            --runtime=100s \
            --rw=read &
        sleep 4
        ublk_recover_kill
        wait
        echo -e "*** delete ublk device ***"
        ./ublk del -n 0
}

for CNT in `seq 4`; do
        modprobe -rv ublk_drv
        modprobe ublk_drv
        echo -e "************ round $CNT ************"
        ublk_test
        sleep 5
done
***************************script***************************

You may run it with our modified ublksrv[3] which supports
recovey feature. No I/O error occurs and you can verify it
by typing
    $ perf-tools/bin/tpoint block:block_rq_error

The basic idea of USER_RECOVERY is quite straightfoward:

(1) release/free everything belongs to the dying process.

    Note: Since ublk_drv does save information about user process,
    this work is important because we don't expect any resource
    lekage. Particularly, ioucmds from the dying ubq_daemons
    need to be completed(freed). Current ublk_drv code cannot satisfy
    our need while considering USER_RECOVERY. So we refactor some code
    shown in patch 1-5 to gracefully free all ioucmds.

(2) init ublk queues including requeuing/aborting rqs.

(3) allow new ubq_daemons issue FETCH_REQ.

Here is steps to reocver:

(1) For a user, after a process crash(how he detect a crash is not related
    to this patchset), he sends START_USER_RECOVERY ctrl-cmd to

I'd suggest to describe crash detector a bit at least, as one whole use case,
crash detector should be the input of the use case of user recovery, which is
usually one part of use case when modeling software requirement/design.

This patchset tries to answer only one question: After a process crash, how to
re-attach the device by another process. So I do not consider other questions
too much, such as:
(1) How to detect a crash?
(2) Is IO hang a crash? Should we kill the process?
(3) What if a blk-mq rq timeout? Does the process dies? Should we kill the process?

But you have to define what is 'crash', otherwise how can you define
what to be recovered?

So far please just define the crash as the whole daemon being dead
abnormally(without sending stop command) if you don't have better idea.

Yes, I argee that a ublk_drv crash means the whole daemon(process) being dead
abnormally(without sending stop command).

I only consider the 'process' crash, not a single 'pthread'(ubq_daemon) crash.
The process crashes if:

(1) The user kill it(the detector can do this, the backend can do this, or the
    ublksrv_tgt can do this...)

(2) It exits because of exception(segfault, divisor error, oom...)

quoted

I think we can answer them after kernel-support of USER_RECOVERY is available.


For now I only try to directly kill the process in testcases and manually inject
a crash in handle_io_async().

quoted

Such as, crash is detected after the ubq daemon pthread/process is crashed?
Will you consider io hang in the daemon pthread/process? IMO, long-term,
the crash detector utility should be part of ublksrv.

Yes, we should design a crash detector in ublksrv. For IO hang, my idea is that:

(1) the ublksrv_tgt code should handle it if user runs ublksrv directly.

(2) the backend should handle it if user only uses libublksrv and embeds it inside
    the backend code.

quoted

We don't implement ublk driver's IO timeout yet, but that implementation may be
related with this recovery feature closely, such as, one simple approach is to
kill ubq-daemon if we can't move on after retrying several times, then
let userspace detect & recovery.

You mean the ublk_drv can kill the ubq_daemon? I have not consider this case yet...

BTW, I don't think we should put too much logic(IO hang, detector) in ublk_drv
because it should only pass-through rqs to userpsace. We should make ublk_drv simple.
Accept a new daemon and re-attach it to /dev/ublkb0 is what it can do I think.

Actually I was thinking the use case of container-ware ublk device when
ADMIN privilege requirement can be removed, so people can do whatever
they want in ublksrv. But sooner or later, request timeout needs to be
considered for real ublk use case.

Agree.

thanks,
Ming