Re: WARN_ON_ONCE reached with "virtio-blk: support mq_ops->queue_rqs()"
From: Kim Suwan <hidden>
Date: 2022-08-22 16:23:22
Subsystem:
block layer, the rest, virtio block and scsi drivers, virtio core · Maintainers:
Jens Axboe, Linus Torvalds, "Michael S. Tsirkin", Jason Wang
Hi Alexandre, On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 4:03 PM Alexandre Courbot [off-list ref] wrote:
Hi Suwan, apologies for taking so long to come back to this. On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 11:50 PM Kim Suwan [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Hi Alexandre On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 11:12 AM Alexandre Courbot [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Hi Suwan, Thanks for the fast reply! On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 1:55 AM Kim Suwan [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
Hi Alexandre, Thanks for reporting the issue. I think a possible scenario is that request fails at virtio_queue_rqs() and it is passed to normal path (virtio_queue_rq). In this procedure, It is possible that blk_mq_start_request() was called twice changing request state from MQ_RQ_IN_FLIGHT to MQ_RQ_IN_FLIGHT.I have checked whether virtblk_prep_rq_batch() within virtio_queue_rqs() ever returns 0, and it looks like it never happens. So as far as I can tell all virtio_queue_rqs() are processed successfully - but maybe the request can also fail further down the line? Is there some extra instrumentation I can do to check that?I'm looking at one more suspicious code. If virtblk_add_req() fails within virtblk_add_req_batch(), virtio_queue_rqs() passes the failed request to the normal path also (virtio_queue_rq). Then, it can call blk_mq_start_request() twice. Because I can't reproduce the issue on my vm, Could you test the below patch? I defer the blk_mq_start_request() call after virtblk_add_req() to ensure that we call blk_mq_start_request() after all the preparations finish.Your patch seems to solve the problem! I am not seeing the warning anymore and the block device looks happy.
Good news! Thanks for the test!
Let me know if I can do anything else.
Could you test one more patch? I move blk_mq_start_request(req) before spinlock() to reduce time holding the lock within virtio_queue_rq(). If it is ok, I will send the patch. Regards, Suwan Kim ---
diff --git a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
index 30255fcaf181..73a0620a7cff 100644
--- a/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c
+++ b/drivers/block/virtio_blk.c@@ -322,8 +322,6 @@ static blk_status_t virtblk_prep_rq(structblk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
if (unlikely(status))
return status;
- blk_mq_start_request(req);
-
vbr->sg_table.nents = virtblk_map_data(hctx, req, vbr);
if (unlikely(vbr->sg_table.nents < 0)) {
virtblk_cleanup_cmd(req);@@ -349,6 +347,8 @@ static blk_status_t virtio_queue_rq(structblk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
if (unlikely(status))
return status;
+ blk_mq_start_request(req);
+
spin_lock_irqsave(&vblk->vqs[qid].lock, flags);
err = virtblk_add_req(vblk->vqs[qid].vq, vbr);
if (err) {@@ -409,6 +409,8 @@ static bool virtblk_add_req_batch(struct virtio_blk_vq *vq, virtblk_unmap_data(req, vbr); virtblk_cleanup_cmd(req); rq_list_add(requeue_list, req); + } else { + blk_mq_start_request(req); } }