From: "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>
To: Keith Busch <keith.busch@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com>,
"hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>,
"keith.busch@intel.com" <keith.busch@intel.com>,
"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
"axboe@kernel.dk" <axboe@kernel.dk>,
"ming.lei@redhat.com" <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Remove generation seqeunce
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 21:56:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180718195650.GA20336@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180713235807.GA19967@localhost.localdomain>
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 05:58:08PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> Of the two you mentioned, yours is preferable IMO. While I appreciate
> Jianchao's detailed analysis, it's hard to take a proposal seriously
> that so colourfully calls everyone else "dangerous" while advocating
> for silently losing requests on purpose.
>
> But where's the option that fixes scsi to handle hardware completions
> concurrently with arbitrary timeout software? Propping up that house of
> cards can't be the only recourse.
The important bit is that we need to fix this issue quickly. We are
past -rc5 so I'm rather concerned about anything too complicated.
I'm not even sure SCSI has a problem with multiple completions happening
at the same time, but it certainly has a problem with bypassing
blk_mq_complete_request from the EH path.
I think we can solve this properly, but I also think we are way to late
in the 4.18 cycle to fix it properly. For now I fear we'll just have
to revert the changes and try again for 4.19 or even 4.20 if we don't
act quickly enough.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: hch@lst.de (hch@lst.de)
Subject: [RFC PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Remove generation seqeunce
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 21:56:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180718195650.GA20336@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180713235807.GA19967@localhost.localdomain>
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018@05:58:08PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> Of the two you mentioned, yours is preferable IMO. While I appreciate
> Jianchao's detailed analysis, it's hard to take a proposal seriously
> that so colourfully calls everyone else "dangerous" while advocating
> for silently losing requests on purpose.
>
> But where's the option that fixes scsi to handle hardware completions
> concurrently with arbitrary timeout software? Propping up that house of
> cards can't be the only recourse.
The important bit is that we need to fix this issue quickly. We are
past -rc5 so I'm rather concerned about anything too complicated.
I'm not even sure SCSI has a problem with multiple completions happening
at the same time, but it certainly has a problem with bypassing
blk_mq_complete_request from the EH path.
I think we can solve this properly, but I also think we are way to late
in the 4.18 cycle to fix it properly. For now I fear we'll just have
to revert the changes and try again for 4.19 or even 4.20 if we don't
act quickly enough.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-18 19:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 128+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-21 23:11 [RFC PATCH 0/3] blk-mq: Timeout rework Keith Busch
2018-05-21 23:11 ` Keith Busch
2018-05-21 23:11 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] blk-mq: Reference count request usage Keith Busch
2018-05-21 23:11 ` Keith Busch
2018-05-22 2:27 ` Ming Lei
2018-05-22 2:27 ` Ming Lei
2018-05-22 15:19 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-05-22 15:19 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-05-21 23:11 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] blk-mq: Fix timeout and state order Keith Busch
2018-05-21 23:11 ` Keith Busch
2018-05-22 2:28 ` Ming Lei
2018-05-22 2:28 ` Ming Lei
2018-05-22 15:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-05-22 15:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-05-22 16:27 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-05-22 16:27 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-05-21 23:11 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Remove generation seqeunce Keith Busch
2018-05-21 23:11 ` Keith Busch
2018-05-21 23:29 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-05-21 23:29 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-05-22 14:15 ` Keith Busch
2018-05-22 14:15 ` Keith Busch
2018-05-22 16:29 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-05-22 16:29 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-05-22 16:34 ` Keith Busch
2018-05-22 16:34 ` Keith Busch
2018-05-22 16:48 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-05-22 16:48 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-05-22 2:49 ` Ming Lei
2018-05-22 2:49 ` Ming Lei
2018-05-22 3:16 ` Jens Axboe
2018-05-22 3:16 ` Jens Axboe
2018-05-22 3:47 ` Ming Lei
2018-05-22 3:47 ` Ming Lei
2018-05-22 3:51 ` Jens Axboe
2018-05-22 3:51 ` Jens Axboe
2018-05-22 8:51 ` Ming Lei
2018-05-22 8:51 ` Ming Lei
2018-05-22 14:35 ` Jens Axboe
2018-05-22 14:35 ` Jens Axboe
2018-05-22 14:20 ` Keith Busch
2018-05-22 14:20 ` Keith Busch
2018-05-22 14:37 ` Ming Lei
2018-05-22 14:37 ` Ming Lei
2018-05-22 14:46 ` Keith Busch
2018-05-22 14:46 ` Keith Busch
2018-05-22 14:57 ` Ming Lei
2018-05-22 14:57 ` Ming Lei
2018-05-22 15:01 ` Keith Busch
2018-05-22 15:01 ` Keith Busch
2018-05-22 15:07 ` Ming Lei
2018-05-22 15:07 ` Ming Lei
2018-05-22 15:17 ` Keith Busch
2018-05-22 15:17 ` Keith Busch
2018-05-22 15:23 ` Ming Lei
2018-05-22 15:23 ` Ming Lei
2018-05-22 16:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-05-22 16:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-05-23 0:34 ` Ming Lei
2018-05-23 0:34 ` Ming Lei
2018-05-23 14:35 ` Keith Busch
2018-05-23 14:35 ` Keith Busch
2018-05-24 1:52 ` Ming Lei
2018-05-24 1:52 ` Ming Lei
2018-05-23 5:48 ` Hannes Reinecke
2018-05-23 5:48 ` Hannes Reinecke
2018-07-12 18:16 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-07-12 18:16 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-07-12 19:24 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-12 19:24 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-12 22:24 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-07-12 22:24 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-07-13 1:12 ` jianchao.wang
2018-07-13 1:12 ` jianchao.wang
2018-07-13 2:40 ` jianchao.wang
2018-07-13 2:40 ` jianchao.wang
2018-07-13 15:43 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-13 15:43 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-13 15:52 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-07-13 15:52 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-07-13 18:47 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-13 18:47 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-13 23:03 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-07-13 23:03 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-07-13 23:58 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-13 23:58 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-18 19:56 ` hch [this message]
2018-07-18 19:56 ` hch
2018-07-18 20:39 ` hch
2018-07-18 20:39 ` hch
2018-07-18 21:05 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-07-18 21:05 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-07-18 22:53 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-18 22:53 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-18 20:53 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-18 20:53 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-18 20:58 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-07-18 20:58 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-07-18 21:17 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-18 21:17 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-18 21:30 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-07-18 21:30 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-07-18 21:33 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-18 21:33 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-19 13:19 ` hch
2018-07-19 13:19 ` hch
2018-07-19 14:59 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-19 14:59 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-19 15:56 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-19 15:56 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-19 16:04 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-07-19 16:04 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-07-19 16:22 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-19 16:22 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-19 16:29 ` hch
2018-07-19 16:29 ` hch
2018-07-19 20:18 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-19 20:18 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-19 13:22 ` hch
2018-07-19 13:22 ` hch
2018-05-21 23:29 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] blk-mq: Timeout rework Bart Van Assche
2018-05-21 23:29 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-05-22 14:06 ` Keith Busch
2018-05-22 14:06 ` Keith Busch
2018-05-22 16:30 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-05-22 16:30 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-05-22 16:44 ` Keith Busch
2018-05-22 16:44 ` Keith Busch
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180718195650.GA20336@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=keith.busch@intel.com \
--cc=keith.busch@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.