[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0b75b219-6145-a58a-77fa-74024cdec493@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 09:26:55 +0000
From: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"jejb@...ux.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
CC: "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"ming.lei@...hat.com" <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
"hare@...e.com" <hare@...e.com>,
"chenxiang (M)" <chenxiang66@...ilicon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/5] blk-mq: Facilitate a shared tags per tagset
>>
>>>> @@ -341,8 +341,11 @@ void blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter(struct
>>>> blk_mq_tag_set *tagset,
>>>> int i;
>>>>
>>>> for (i = 0; i < tagset->nr_hw_queues; i++) {
>>>> - if (tagset->tags && tagset->tags[i])
>>>> + if (tagset->tags && tagset->tags[i]) {
>>>> blk_mq_all_tag_busy_iter(tagset->tags[i], fn, priv);
>>>
>>> As I mentioned earlier, wouldn't this iterate over all tags for all
>>> hctx's, when we just want the tags for hctx[i]?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> John
>>>
>>> [Not trimming reply for future reference]
>>>
>>>> + if (tagset->share_tags)
>>>> + break;
>>>> + }
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter);
>>
>> Since blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() loops over all hardware queues all
>> what is changed is the order in which requests are examined. I am not
>> aware of any block driver that calls blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() and
>> that depends on the order of the requests passed to the callback
>> function.
>>
>
> OK, fine.
>
> So, to me, this approach also seems viable then.
>
> I am however not so happy with how we use blk_mq_tag_set.tags[0] for the
> shared tags; I would like to use blk_mq_tag_set.shared_tags and make
> blk_mq_tag_set.tags[] point at blk_mq_tag_set.shared_tags or maybe not
> blk_mq_tag_set.tags[] at all. However maybe that change may be more
> intrusive.
>
> And another more real concern is that we miss a check somewhere for
> rq->mq_hctx == hctx when examining the bits on the shared tags.
Another issue I notice is that using tags from just hctx0 may cause a
breakage when associated with a different hw queue in the driver.
Specifically we may have blk_mq_alloc_rqs(hctx_idx =
0)->blk_mq_init_request()->nvme_init_request(), and we would set all
iod->nvmeq = nvmeq0; since we may actually use this iod on another hw
queue, we're breaking that interface.
Thanks,
John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists