[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YyuqV1sauPRUjug8@T590>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2022 08:28:01 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To: ZiyangZhang <ZiyangZhang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, xiaoguang.wang@...ux.alibaba.com,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
joseph.qi@...ux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 4/8] ublk_drv: requeue rqs with recovery feature
enabled
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 05:58:45PM +0800, ZiyangZhang wrote:
> With recovery feature enabled, in ublk_queue_rq or task work
> (in exit_task_work or fallback wq), we requeue rqs instead of
> ending(aborting) them. Besides, No matter recovery feature is enabled
> or disabled, we schedule monitor_work immediately.
>
> Signed-off-by: ZiyangZhang <ZiyangZhang@...ux.alibaba.com>
> ---
> drivers/block/ublk_drv.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c b/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c
> index 3bdac4bdf46f..b940e490ebab 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c
> @@ -655,6 +655,19 @@ static void ubq_complete_io_cmd(struct ublk_io *io, int res)
>
> #define UBLK_REQUEUE_DELAY_MS 3
>
> +static inline void __ublk_abort_rq_in_task_work(struct ublk_queue *ubq,
> + struct request *rq)
> +{
> + pr_devel("%s: %s q_id %d tag %d io_flags %x.\n", __func__,
> + (ublk_queue_can_use_recovery(ubq)) ? "requeue" : "abort",
> + ubq->q_id, rq->tag, ubq->ios[rq->tag].flags);
> + /* We cannot process this rq so just requeue it. */
> + if (ublk_queue_can_use_recovery(ubq))
> + blk_mq_requeue_request(rq, false);
> + else
> + blk_mq_end_request(rq, BLK_STS_IOERR);
> +}
> +
> static inline void __ublk_rq_task_work(struct request *req)
> {
> struct ublk_queue *ubq = req->mq_hctx->driver_data;
> @@ -677,7 +690,7 @@ static inline void __ublk_rq_task_work(struct request *req)
> * (2) current->flags & PF_EXITING.
> */
> if (unlikely(current != ubq->ubq_daemon || current->flags & PF_EXITING)) {
> - blk_mq_end_request(req, BLK_STS_IOERR);
> + __ublk_abort_rq_in_task_work(ubq, req);
> mod_delayed_work(system_wq, &ub->monitor_work, 0);
> return;
> }
> @@ -752,6 +765,20 @@ static void ublk_rq_task_work_fn(struct callback_head *work)
> __ublk_rq_task_work(req);
> }
>
> +static inline blk_status_t __ublk_abort_rq(struct ublk_queue *ubq,
> + struct request *rq)
> +{
> + pr_devel("%s: %s q_id %d tag %d io_flags %x.\n", __func__,
> + (ublk_queue_can_use_recovery(ubq)) ? "requeue" : "abort",
> + ubq->q_id, rq->tag, ubq->ios[rq->tag].flags);
> + /* We cannot process this rq so just requeue it. */
> + if (ublk_queue_can_use_recovery(ubq)) {
> + blk_mq_requeue_request(rq, false);
> + return BLK_STS_OK;
> + }
> + return BLK_STS_IOERR;
> +}
> +
Please remove the two added logging, otherwise this patch looks fine.
Thanks,
Ming
Powered by blists - more mailing lists