[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YTeTQGrw41k08hgf@x1-carbon>
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2021 16:28:49 +0000
From: Niklas Cassel <Niklas.Cassel@....com>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
CC: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>,
Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Revert "mq-deadline: Fix request accounting"
On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 08:15:03AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 9/7/21 7:21 AM, Niklas Cassel wrote:
> > blk-mq will no longer call the I/O scheduler .finish_request() callback
> > for requests that were never inserted to the I/O scheduler.
>
> I do not agree. Even with patch 1/2 from this series applied, finish_request()
> will still be called for requests inserted by blk_insert_cloned_request()
> although these requests are never inserted to the I/O scheduler.
>
> Bart.
Hello Bart,
Looking at blk_mq_free_request(),
e->type->ops.finish_request() will only be called if RQF_ELVPRIV
is set.
blk_insert_cloned_request() doesn't seem to allocate a request
itself, but instead takes an already cloned request.
So I guess it depends on how the supplied request was cloned.
I would assume if the original request doesn't have RQF_ELVPRIV set,
then neither will the cloned request?
I tried to look at blk_rq_prep_clone(), which seems to be a common
cloning function, but I don't see req->rq_flags being copied
(except for RQF_SPECIAL_PAYLOAD).
Anyway, I don't see how .finish_request() will be called in relation
to blk_insert_cloned_request(). Could you please help me out and
give me an example of a call chain where this can happen?
Kind regards,
Niklas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists