[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ab82c5fd-03d6-683d-2c8a-1b71b940d94a@grimberg.me>
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2023 00:34:22 +0300
From: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>, Lei Lei2 Yin <yinlei2@...ovo.com>
Cc: "axboe@...com" <axboe@...com>, "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
"linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"cybeyond@...mail.com" <cybeyond@...mail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nvme: fix double blk_mq_complete_request for timeout
request with low probability
>> diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/core.c b/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
>> index 53ef028596c6..c1cc384f4f3e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
>> @@ -450,8 +450,8 @@ bool nvme_cancel_request(struct request *req, void *data)
>> dev_dbg_ratelimited(((struct nvme_ctrl *) data)->device,
>> "Cancelling I/O %d", req->tag);
>>
>> - /* don't abort one completed request */
>> - if (blk_mq_request_completed(req))
>> + /* don't abort one completed or idle request */
>> + if (blk_mq_rq_state(req) != MQ_RQ_IN_FLIGHT)
>> return true;
>
> I was suspicious about this path too, and had the same change long ago, but
> shelved it when I couldn't produce any errors there. But the change makes sense
> to me!
>
> Reviewed-by: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
We need to change nvmf_complete_timed_out_request() too.
Reviewed-by: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists