From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] nvme/multipath: Consult blk_status_t for failover Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 18:40:33 +0100 Message-ID: <20180109174033.GA13171@lst.de> References: <20180104224623.8944-1-keith.busch@intel.com> <20180104224623.8944-3-keith.busch@intel.com> <20180108095707.GD4673@lst.de> <20180109173857.GF15154@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180109173857.GF15154@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Keith Busch Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Linux Block , Linux NVMe , Device Mapper , Mike Snitzer , Jens Axboe , Bart VanAssche , James Smart , "Martin K . Petersen" , Hannes Reinecke , Sagi Grimberg List-Id: dm-devel.ids On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 10:38:58AM -0700, Keith Busch wrote: > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018 at 01:57:07AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > - if (unlikely(nvme_req(req)->status && nvme_req_needs_retry(req))) { > > > - if (nvme_req_needs_failover(req)) { > > > + blk_status_t status = nvme_error_status(req); > > > + > > > + if (unlikely(status != BLK_STS_OK && nvme_req_needs_retry(req))) { > > > + if (nvme_req_needs_failover(req, status)) { > > > > We don't really need to call nvme_error_status if nvme_req(req)->status > > is zero. > > We are already calling nvme_error_status unconditionally for > blk_mq_end_request, so we currently read nvme_req(req)->status multiple > times in the completion path. I think we'd prefer to read it just once. Indeed. Objection retracted. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hch@lst.de (Christoph Hellwig) Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 18:40:33 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/5] nvme/multipath: Consult blk_status_t for failover In-Reply-To: <20180109173857.GF15154@localhost.localdomain> References: <20180104224623.8944-1-keith.busch@intel.com> <20180104224623.8944-3-keith.busch@intel.com> <20180108095707.GD4673@lst.de> <20180109173857.GF15154@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20180109174033.GA13171@lst.de> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018@10:38:58AM -0700, Keith Busch wrote: > On Mon, Jan 08, 2018@01:57:07AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > - if (unlikely(nvme_req(req)->status && nvme_req_needs_retry(req))) { > > > - if (nvme_req_needs_failover(req)) { > > > + blk_status_t status = nvme_error_status(req); > > > + > > > + if (unlikely(status != BLK_STS_OK && nvme_req_needs_retry(req))) { > > > + if (nvme_req_needs_failover(req, status)) { > > > > We don't really need to call nvme_error_status if nvme_req(req)->status > > is zero. > > We are already calling nvme_error_status unconditionally for > blk_mq_end_request, so we currently read nvme_req(req)->status multiple > times in the completion path. I think we'd prefer to read it just once. Indeed. Objection retracted.