[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250925011427.GC3269-mkhalfella@purestorage.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 18:14:27 -0700
From: Mohamed Khalfella <mkhalfella@...estorage.com>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@...nel.org>
Cc: Amit Chaudhary <achaudhary@...estorage.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>, randyj@...estorage.com,
jmeneghi@...hat.com, emilne@...hat.com,
linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] nvme-multipath: Skip nr_active increments in RETRY
disposition
On 2025-09-24 17:02:51 -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2025 at 03:43:18PM -0700, Amit Chaudhary wrote:
> > static inline void nvme_start_request(struct request *rq)
> > {
> > - if (rq->cmd_flags & REQ_NVME_MPATH)
> > + if ((rq->cmd_flags & REQ_NVME_MPATH) && (!nvme_req(rq)->retries))
> > nvme_mpath_start_request(rq);
> > blk_mq_start_request(rq);
> > }
>
> Using "retries" is bit indirect as a proxy for multipath active counts.
> Could this be moved to the mpath start instead, directly using the flag
> that accounts for the path? This also helps to keep track if the command
> gets retried across a user toggling the policy to "qd".
>
> ---
> diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/multipath.c b/drivers/nvme/host/multipath.c
> index 3da980dc60d91..1c630967ddd40 100644
> --- a/drivers/nvme/host/multipath.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/multipath.c
> @@ -182,7 +182,8 @@ void nvme_mpath_start_request(struct request *rq)
> struct nvme_ns *ns = rq->q->queuedata;
> struct gendisk *disk = ns->head->disk;
>
> - if (READ_ONCE(ns->head->subsys->iopolicy) == NVME_IOPOLICY_QD) {
> + if (READ_ONCE(ns->head->subsys->iopolicy) == NVME_IOPOLICY_QD &&
> + !(nvme_req(rq)->flags & NVME_MPATH_CNT_ACTIVE)) {
> atomic_inc(&ns->ctrl->nr_active);
> nvme_req(rq)->flags |= NVME_MPATH_CNT_ACTIVE;
> }
> --
193 nvme_req(rq)->flags |= NVME_MPATH_IO_STATS;
194 nvme_req(rq)->start_time = bdev_start_io_acct(disk->part0, req_op(rq),
195 jiffies);
Doing it this way might messup with stats accounting because the two
lines above will be executed on request retry. I do not think we need
that, right?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists