[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <61c62ef0-4dde-4c14-8039-213258d3c6ae@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 09:44:20 +0900
From: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@...nel.org>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>, hare@...e.de, jack@...e.cz,
bvanassche@....org, tj@...nel.org, josef@...icpanda.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
yukuai3@...wei.com
Cc: cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yi.zhang@...wei.com, yangerkun@...wei.com,
johnny.chenyi@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] blk-mq-sched: introduce high level elevator lock
On 8/6/25 17:57, Yu Kuai wrote:
> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>
> Currently, both mq-deadline and bfq have global spin lock that will be
> grabbed inside elevator methods like dispatch_request, insert_requests,
> and bio_merge. And the global lock is the main reason mq-deadline and
> bfq can't scale very well.
>
> While dispatching request, blk_mq_get_disatpch_budget() and
> blk_mq_get_driver_tag() must be called, and they are not ready to be called
> inside elevator methods, hence introduce a new method like
> dispatch_requests is not possible.
>
> Hence introduce a new high level elevator lock, currently it is protecting
> dispatch_request only. Following patches will convert mq-deadline and bfq
> to use this lock and finally support request batch dispatching by calling
> the method multiple time while holding the lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
> ---
> block/blk-mq-sched.c | 9 ++++++++-
> block/elevator.c | 1 +
> block/elevator.h | 14 ++++++++++++--
> 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-mq-sched.c b/block/blk-mq-sched.c
> index 55a0fd105147..1a2da5edbe13 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq-sched.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq-sched.c
> @@ -113,7 +113,14 @@ static int __blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> if (budget_token < 0)
> break;
>
> - rq = e->type->ops.dispatch_request(hctx);
> + if (blk_queue_sq_sched(q)) {
> + elevator_lock(e);
> + rq = e->type->ops.dispatch_request(hctx);
> + elevator_unlock(e);
I do not think this is safe for bfq since bfq uses the irqsave/irqrestore spin
lock variant. If it is safe, this needs a big comment block explaining why
and/or the rules regarding the scheduler use of this lock.
> + } else {
> + rq = e->type->ops.dispatch_request(hctx);
> + }
> +
> if (!rq) {
> blk_mq_put_dispatch_budget(q, budget_token);
> /*
> diff --git a/block/elevator.c b/block/elevator.c
> index 88f8f36bed98..45303af0ca73 100644
> --- a/block/elevator.c
> +++ b/block/elevator.c
> @@ -144,6 +144,7 @@ struct elevator_queue *elevator_alloc(struct request_queue *q,
> eq->type = e;
> kobject_init(&eq->kobj, &elv_ktype);
> mutex_init(&eq->sysfs_lock);
> + spin_lock_init(&eq->lock);
> hash_init(eq->hash);
>
> return eq;
> diff --git a/block/elevator.h b/block/elevator.h
> index a07ce773a38f..81f7700b0339 100644
> --- a/block/elevator.h
> +++ b/block/elevator.h
> @@ -110,12 +110,12 @@ struct request *elv_rqhash_find(struct request_queue *q, sector_t offset);
> /*
> * each queue has an elevator_queue associated with it
> */
> -struct elevator_queue
> -{
> +struct elevator_queue {
> struct elevator_type *type;
> void *elevator_data;
> struct kobject kobj;
> struct mutex sysfs_lock;
> + spinlock_t lock;
> unsigned long flags;
> DECLARE_HASHTABLE(hash, ELV_HASH_BITS);
> };
> @@ -124,6 +124,16 @@ struct elevator_queue
> #define ELEVATOR_FLAG_DYING 1
> #define ELEVATOR_FLAG_ENABLE_WBT_ON_EXIT 2
>
> +#define elevator_lock(e) spin_lock(&(e)->lock)
> +#define elevator_unlock(e) spin_unlock(&(e)->lock)
> +#define elevator_lock_irq(e) spin_lock_irq(&(e)->lock)
> +#define elevator_unlock_irq(e) spin_unlock_irq(&(e)->lock)
> +#define elevator_lock_irqsave(e, flags) \
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&(e)->lock, flags)
> +#define elevator_unlock_irqrestore(e, flags) \
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&(e)->lock, flags)
> +#define elevator_lock_assert_held(e) lockdep_assert_held(&(e)->lock)
> +
> /*
> * block elevator interface
> */
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
Powered by blists - more mailing lists