block, bfq: consider also in_service_entity to state whether an entity is active

Groups of BFQ queues are represented by generic entities in BFQ. When
a queue belonging to a parent entity is deactivated, the parent entity
may need to be deactivated too, in case the deactivated queue was the
only active queue for the parent entity. This deactivation may need to
be propagated upwards if the entity belongs, in its turn, to a further
higher-level entity, and so on. In particular, the upward propagation
of deactivation stops at the first parent entity that remains active
even if one of its child entities has been deactivated.

To decide whether the last non-deactivation condition holds for a
parent entity, BFQ checks whether the field next_in_service is still
not NULL for the parent entity, after the deactivation of one of its
child entity. If it is not NULL, then there are certainly other active
entities in the parent entity, and deactivations can stop.

Unfortunately, this check misses a corner case: if in_service_entity
is not NULL, then next_in_service may happen to be NULL, although the
parent entity is evidently active. This happens if: 1) the entity
pointed by in_service_entity is the only active entity in the parent
entity, and 2) according to the definition of next_in_service, the
in_service_entity cannot be considered as next_in_service. See the
comments on the definition of next_in_service for details on this
second point.

Hitting the above corner case causes crashes.

To address this issue, this commit:
1) Extends the above check on only next_in_service to controlling both
next_in_service and in_service_entity (if any of them is not NULL,
then no further deactivation is performed)
2) Improves the (important) comments on how next_in_service is defined
and updated; in particular it fixes a few rather obscure paragraphs

Reported-by: Eric Wheeler <bfq-sched@lists.ewheeler.net>
Reported-by: Rick Yiu <rick_yiu@htc.com>
Reported-by: Tom X Nguyen <tom81094@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
Tested-by: Eric Wheeler <bfq-sched@lists.ewheeler.net>
Tested-by: Rick Yiu <rick_yiu@htc.com>
Tested-by: Laurentiu Nicola <lnicola@dend.ro>
Tested-by: Tom X Nguyen <tom81094@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>

1 files changed, 78 insertions, 64 deletions

diff --git a/block/bfq-wf2q.c b/block/bfq-wf2q.c
index 881bbe5e1827..911aa7431dbe 100644
--- a/block/bfq-wf2q.c
+++ b/block/bfq-wf2q.c
@@ -188,21 +188,23 @@ static bool bfq_update_parent_budget(struct bfq_entity *next_in_service)
 
 /*
  * This function tells whether entity stops being a candidate for next
- * service, according to the following logic.
+ * service, according to the restrictive definition of the field
+ * next_in_service. In particular, this function is invoked for an
+ * entity that is about to be set in service.
  *
- * This function is invoked for an entity that is about to be set in
- * service. If such an entity is a queue, then the entity is no longer
- * a candidate for next service (i.e, a candidate entity to serve
- * after the in-service entity is expired). The function then returns
- * true.
+ * If entity is a queue, then the entity is no longer a candidate for
+ * next service according to the that definition, because entity is
+ * about to become the in-service queue. This function then returns
+ * true if entity is a queue.
  *
- * In contrast, the entity could stil be a candidate for next service
- * if it is not a queue, and has more than one child. In fact, even if
- * one of its children is about to be set in service, other children
- * may still be the next to serve. As a consequence, a non-queue
- * entity is not a candidate for next-service only if it has only one
- * child. And only if this condition holds, then the function returns
- * true for a non-queue entity.
+ * In contrast, entity could still be a candidate for next service if
+ * it is not a queue, and has more than one active child. In fact,
+ * even if one of its children is about to be set in service, other
+ * active children may still be the next to serve, for the parent
+ * entity, even according to the above definition. As a consequence, a
+ * non-queue entity is not a candidate for next-service only if it has
+ * only one active child. And only if this condition holds, then this
+ * function returns true for a non-queue entity.
  */
 static bool bfq_no_longer_next_in_service(struct bfq_entity *entity)
 {
@@ -213,6 +215,18 @@ static bool bfq_no_longer_next_in_service(struct bfq_entity *entity)
 
 	bfqg = container_of(entity, struct bfq_group, entity);
 
+	/*
+	 * The field active_entities does not always contain the
+	 * actual number of active children entities: it happens to
+	 * not account for the in-service entity in case the latter is
+	 * removed from its active tree (which may get done after
+	 * invoking the function bfq_no_longer_next_in_service in
+	 * bfq_get_next_queue). Fortunately, here, i.e., while
+	 * bfq_no_longer_next_in_service is not yet completed in
+	 * bfq_get_next_queue, bfq_active_extract has not yet been
+	 * invoked, and thus active_entities still coincides with the
+	 * actual number of active entities.
+	 */
 	if (bfqg->active_entities == 1)
 		return true;
 
@@ -954,7 +968,7 @@ static void bfq_update_fin_time_enqueue(struct bfq_entity *entity,
  * one of its children receives a new request.
  *
  * Basically, this function updates the timestamps of entity and
- * inserts entity into its active tree, ater possible extracting it
+ * inserts entity into its active tree, ater possibly extracting it
  * from its idle tree.
  */
 static void __bfq_activate_entity(struct bfq_entity *entity,
@@ -1048,7 +1062,7 @@ static void __bfq_requeue_entity(struct bfq_entity *entity)
 		entity->start = entity->finish;
 		/*
 		 * In addition, if the entity had more than one child
-		 * when set in service, then was not extracted from
+		 * when set in service, then it was not extracted from
 		 * the active tree. This implies that the position of
 		 * the entity in the active tree may need to be
 		 * changed now, because we have just updated the start
@@ -1056,9 +1070,8 @@ static void __bfq_requeue_entity(struct bfq_entity *entity)
 		 * time in a moment (the requeueing is then, more
 		 * precisely, a repositioning in this case). To
 		 * implement this repositioning, we: 1) dequeue the
-		 * entity here, 2) update the finish time and
-		 * requeue the entity according to the new
-		 * timestamps below.
+		 * entity here, 2) update the finish time and requeue
+		 * the entity according to the new timestamps below.
 		 */
 		if (entity->tree)
 			bfq_active_extract(st, entity);
@@ -1105,9 +1118,10 @@ static void __bfq_activate_requeue_entity(struct bfq_entity *entity,
 
 
 /**
- * bfq_activate_entity - activate or requeue an entity representing a bfq_queue,
- *			 and activate, requeue or reposition all ancestors
- *			 for which such an update becomes necessary.
+ * bfq_activate_requeue_entity - activate or requeue an entity representing a
+ *				 bfq_queue, and activate, requeue or reposition
+ *				 all ancestors for which such an update becomes
+ *				 necessary.
  * @entity: the entity to activate.
  * @non_blocking_wait_rq: true if this entity was waiting for a request
  * @requeue: true if this is a requeue, which implies that bfqq is
@@ -1135,9 +1149,9 @@ static void bfq_activate_requeue_entity(struct bfq_entity *entity,
  * @ins_into_idle_tree: if false, the entity will not be put into the
  *			idle tree.
  *
- * Deactivates an entity, independently from its previous state.  Must
+ * Deactivates an entity, independently of its previous state.  Must
  * be invoked only if entity is on a service tree. Extracts the entity
- * from that tree, and if necessary and allowed, puts it on the idle
+ * from that tree, and if necessary and allowed, puts it into the idle
  * tree.
  */
 bool __bfq_deactivate_entity(struct bfq_entity *entity, bool ins_into_idle_tree)
@@ -1179,7 +1193,7 @@ bool __bfq_deactivate_entity(struct bfq_entity *entity, bool ins_into_idle_tree)
 /**
  * bfq_deactivate_entity - deactivate an entity representing a bfq_queue.
  * @entity: the entity to deactivate.
- * @ins_into_idle_tree: true if the entity can be put on the idle tree
+ * @ins_into_idle_tree: true if the entity can be put into the idle tree
  */
 static void bfq_deactivate_entity(struct bfq_entity *entity,
 				  bool ins_into_idle_tree,
@@ -1210,16 +1224,29 @@ static void bfq_deactivate_entity(struct bfq_entity *entity,
 			 */
 			bfq_update_next_in_service(sd, NULL);
 
-		if (sd->next_in_service)
+		if (sd->next_in_service || sd->in_service_entity) {
 			/*
-			 * The parent entity is still backlogged,
-			 * because next_in_service is not NULL. So, no
-			 * further upwards deactivation must be
-			 * performed.  Yet, next_in_service has
-			 * changed.  Then the schedule does need to be
-			 * updated upwards.
+			 * The parent entity is still active, because
+			 * either next_in_service or in_service_entity
+			 * is not NULL. So, no further upwards
+			 * deactivation must be performed.  Yet,
+			 * next_in_service has changed.	Then the
+			 * schedule does need to be updated upwards.
+			 *
+			 * NOTE If in_service_entity is not NULL, then
+			 * next_in_service may happen to be NULL,
+			 * although the parent entity is evidently
+			 * active. This happens if 1) the entity
+			 * pointed by in_service_entity is the only
+			 * active entity in the parent entity, and 2)
+			 * according to the definition of
+			 * next_in_service, the in_service_entity
+			 * cannot be considered as
+			 * next_in_service. See the comments on the
+			 * definition of next_in_service for details.
 			 */
 			break;
+		}
 
 		/*
 		 * If we get here, then the parent is no more
@@ -1496,47 +1523,34 @@ struct bfq_queue *bfq_get_next_queue(struct bfq_data *bfqd)
 
 		/*
 		 * If entity is no longer a candidate for next
-		 * service, then we extract it from its active tree,
-		 * for the following reason. To further boost the
-		 * throughput in some special case, BFQ needs to know
-		 * which is the next candidate entity to serve, while
-		 * there is already an entity in service. In this
-		 * respect, to make it easy to compute/update the next
-		 * candidate entity to serve after the current
-		 * candidate has been set in service, there is a case
-		 * where it is necessary to extract the current
-		 * candidate from its service tree. Such a case is
-		 * when the entity just set in service cannot be also
-		 * a candidate for next service. Details about when
-		 * this conditions holds are reported in the comments
-		 * on the function bfq_no_longer_next_in_service()
-		 * invoked below.
+		 * service, then it must be extracted from its active
+		 * tree, so as to make sure that it won't be
+		 * considered when computing next_in_service. See the
+		 * comments on the function
+		 * bfq_no_longer_next_in_service() for details.
 		 */
 		if (bfq_no_longer_next_in_service(entity))
 			bfq_active_extract(bfq_entity_service_tree(entity),
 					   entity);
 
 		/*
-		 * For the same reason why we may have just extracted
-		 * entity from its active tree, we may need to update
-		 * next_in_service for the sched_data of entity too,
-		 * regardless of whether entity has been extracted.
-		 * In fact, even if entity has not been extracted, a
-		 * descendant entity may get extracted. Such an event
-		 * would cause a change in next_in_service for the
-		 * level of the descendant entity, and thus possibly
-		 * back to upper levels.
+		 * Even if entity is not to be extracted according to
+		 * the above check, a descendant entity may get
+		 * extracted in one of the next iterations of this
+		 * loop. Such an event could cause a change in
+		 * next_in_service for the level of the descendant
+		 * entity, and thus possibly back to this level.
 		 *
-		 * We cannot perform the resulting needed update
-		 * before the end of this loop, because, to know which
-		 * is the correct next-to-serve candidate entity for
-		 * each level, we need first to find the leaf entity
-		 * to set in service. In fact, only after we know
-		 * which is the next-to-serve leaf entity, we can
-		 * discover whether the parent entity of the leaf
-		 * entity becomes the next-to-serve, and so on.
+		 * However, we cannot perform the resulting needed
+		 * update of next_in_service for this level before the
+		 * end of the whole loop, because, to know which is
+		 * the correct next-to-serve candidate entity for each
+		 * level, we need first to find the leaf entity to set
+		 * in service. In fact, only after we know which is
+		 * the next-to-serve leaf entity, we can discover
+		 * whether the parent entity of the leaf entity
+		 * becomes the next-to-serve, and so on.
 		 */
-
 	}
 
 	bfqq = bfq_entity_to_bfqq(entity);