[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <99c6ca81-746d-85f4-04d3-49d7a3de611b@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2022 11:56:21 +0100
From: John Garry <john.garry@...wei.com>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
CC: <axboe@...nel.dk>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, <hch@....de>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: Properly init bios from
blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx()
On 23/10/2022 14:12, Ming Lei wrote:
>> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
>> index 8070b6c10e8d..260adeb2e455 100644
>> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
>> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
>> @@ -402,6 +402,10 @@ static struct request *blk_mq_rq_ctx_init(struct blk_mq_alloc_data *data,
>> }
>> }
>>
>> + rq->__data_len = 0;
>> + rq->__sector = (sector_t) -1;
>> + rq->bio = rq->biotail = NULL;
>> +
>> return rq;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -591,9 +595,6 @@ struct request *blk_mq_alloc_request(struct request_queue *q, blk_opf_t opf,
>> if (!rq)
>> goto out_queue_exit;
>> }
>> - rq->__data_len = 0;
>> - rq->__sector = (sector_t) -1;
>> - rq->bio = rq->biotail = NULL;
> This patch looks not good, why do you switch to initialize the three fields
> twice in fast path?
Can you please show me how these are initialized twice?
If there is a real concern with this then we go with my original idea,
which was to copy the init method of blk_mq_alloc_request() (in
blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx())
>
> BTW, we know blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx() has big trouble, so please
> avoid to extend it to other use cases.
Yeah, I know this, but sometimes we just need to allocate for a specific
HW queue...
For my usecase of interest, it should not impact if the cpumask of the
HW queue goes offline after selecting the cpu in
blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx(), so any race is ok ... I think.
However it should be still possible to make blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx()
more robust. How about using something like work_on_cpu_safe() to
allocate and execute the request with blk_mq_alloc_request() on a cpu
associated with the HW queue, such that we know the cpu is online and
stays online until we execute it? Or also extent to
work_on_cpumask_safe() variant, so that we don't need to try all cpus in
the mask (to see if online)?
Thanks,
John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists