linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/11] blk-mq: Add blk_mq_init_queue

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b5df2ef1-2d6d-340e-e4b4-09132dc0516b@suse.de>
Date:   Tue, 22 Mar 2022 13:16:46 +0100
From:   Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
To:     John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     axboe@...nel.dk, damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com,
        bvanassche@....org, jejb@...ux.ibm.com, martin.petersen@...cle.com,
        ming.lei@...hat.com, chenxiang66@...ilicon.com,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        dm-devel@...hat.com, beanhuo@...ron.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/11] blk-mq: Add blk_mq_init_queue_ops()

On 3/22/22 12:33, John Garry wrote:
> On 22/03/2022 11:18, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 06:39:35PM +0800, John Garry wrote:
>>> Add an API to allocate a request queue which accepts a custom set of
>>> blk_mq_ops for that request queue.
>>>
>>> The reason which we may want custom ops is for queuing requests which we
>>> don't want to go through the normal queuing path.
>>
>> Eww.  I really do not think we should do separate ops per queue, as that
>> is going to get us into a deep mess eventually.
>>
> 
> Yeah... so far (here) it works out quite nicely, as we don't need to 
> change the SCSI blk mq ops nor allocate a scsi_device - everything is 
> just separate.
> 
> The other method mentioned previously was to add the request "reserved" 
> flag and add new paths in scsi_queue_rq() et al to handle this, but that 
> gets messy.
> 
> Any other ideas ...?
> 

As outlined in the other mail, I think might be useful is to have a 
_third_ type of requests (in addition to the normal and the reserved ones).
That one would be allocated from the normal I/O pool (and hence could 
fail if the pool is exhausted), but would be able to carry a different 
payload (type) than the normal requests.
And we could have a separate queue_rq for these requests, as we can 
differentiate them in the block layer.

Cheers,

Hannes
-- 
Dr. Hannes Reinecke		           Kernel Storage Architect
hare@...e.de			                  +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), GF: Felix Imendörffer