[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210517145805.end32zjhqfjh6kga@beryllium.lan>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2021 16:58:05 +0200
From: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>
To: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
Cc: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
"Ewan D. Milne" <emilne@...hat.com>,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] nvme-tcp: Check if request has started before
processing it
Hi Sagi,
On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 04:22:30PM -0700, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> Yea, maybe something like this?
I did give this a spin with blktests (loopback device) and on real
hardware (FC). Seems to do work fine. Just two things.
> +/*
> + * nvme command_id is constructed as such:
> + * | xxxx | xxxxxxxxxxxx |
> + * gen request tag
> + */
> +#define nvme_cid_install_genctr(gen) ((gen & 0xf) << 12)
> +#define nvme_genctr_from_cid(cid) ((cid & 0xf000) >> 12)
> +#define nvme_tag_from_cid(cid) (cid & 0xfff)
> +
> +static inline u16 nvme_cid(struct request *rq)
> +{
> + return nvme_cid_install_genctr(nvme_req(rq)->genctr++) | rq->tag;
> +}
- return nvme_cid_install_genctr(nvme_req(rq)->genctr++) | rq->tag;
+ nvme_req(rq)->genctr = ++nvme_req(rq)->genctr & 0xf;
+ return nvme_cid_install_genctr(nvme_req(rq)->genctr) | rq->tag;
The first issue, it really needs prefix increment if you want to write
it in one line. And it should store only the first 4 bits.
nvme_find_rq() would complain with 0x0 != 0x10 after the first overflow.
> +static inline struct request *nvme_find_rq(struct blk_mq_tags *tags,
> + u16 command_id)
> +{
> + u8 genctr = nvme_genctr_from_cid(command_id);
> + u16 tag = nvme_tag_from_cid(command_id);
> + struct request *rq;
> +
> + rq = blk_mq_tag_to_rq(tags, tag);
> + if (unlikely(!rq)) {
> + pr_err("could not locate request for tag %#x\n",
> + tag);
> + return NULL;
> + }
> + if (unlikely(nvme_req(rq)->genctr != genctr)) {
> + dev_err(nvme_req(rq)->ctrl->device,
> + "request %#x genctr mismatch (got %#x expected
> %#x)\n",
> + tag, nvme_req(rq)->genctr, genctr);
- tag, nvme_req(rq)->genctr, genctr);
+ tag, genctr, nvme_req(rq)->genctr);
The arguments are in the wrong order. Got me a bit confused.
Are you going to send out a proper patch? I'd like to move things
forward and could offer to do some more testing if needed.
Thanks,
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists