Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: don't queue passthrough request into scheduler

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

On 5/12/23 9:03?AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> Passthrough(pt) request shouldn't be queued to scheduler, especially some
> schedulers(such as bfq) supposes that req->bio is always available and
> blk-cgroup can be retrieved via bio.
> 
> Sometimes pt request could be part of error handling, so it is better to always
> queue it into hctx->dispatch directly.
> 
> Fix this issue by queuing pt request from plug list to hctx->dispatch
> directly.
> 
> Reported-by: Guangwu Zhang <guazhang@redhat.com>
> Investigated-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
> Fixes: 1c2d2fff6dc0 ("block: wire-up support for passthrough plugging")
> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
> ---
> Guang Wu, please test this patch and provide us the result.
> 
>  block/blk-mq.c | 12 ++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> index f6dad0886a2f..11efaefa26c3 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> @@ -2711,6 +2711,7 @@ static void blk_mq_dispatch_plug_list(struct blk_plug *plug, bool from_sched)
>  	struct request *requeue_list = NULL;
>  	struct request **requeue_lastp = &requeue_list;
>  	unsigned int depth = 0;
> +	bool pt = false;
>  	LIST_HEAD(list);
>  
>  	do {
> @@ -2719,7 +2720,9 @@ static void blk_mq_dispatch_plug_list(struct blk_plug *plug, bool from_sched)
>  		if (!this_hctx) {
>  			this_hctx = rq->mq_hctx;
>  			this_ctx = rq->mq_ctx;
> -		} else if (this_hctx != rq->mq_hctx || this_ctx != rq->mq_ctx) {
> +			pt = blk_rq_is_passthrough(rq);
> +		} else if (this_hctx != rq->mq_hctx || this_ctx != rq->mq_ctx ||
> +				pt != blk_rq_is_passthrough(rq)) {
>  			rq_list_add_tail(&requeue_lastp, rq);
>  			continue;
>  		}
> @@ -2731,10 +2734,15 @@ static void blk_mq_dispatch_plug_list(struct blk_plug *plug, bool from_sched)
>  	trace_block_unplug(this_hctx->queue, depth, !from_sched);
>  
>  	percpu_ref_get(&this_hctx->queue->q_usage_counter);
> -	if (this_hctx->queue->elevator) {
> +	if (this_hctx->queue->elevator && !pt) {
>  		this_hctx->queue->elevator->type->ops.insert_requests(this_hctx,
>  				&list, 0);
>  		blk_mq_run_hw_queue(this_hctx, from_sched);
> +	} else if (pt) {
> +		spin_lock(&this_hctx->lock);
> +		list_splice_tail_init(&list, &this_hctx->dispatch);
> +		spin_unlock(&this_hctx->lock);
> +		blk_mq_run_hw_queue(this_hctx, from_sched);
>  	} else {
>  		blk_mq_insert_requests(this_hctx, this_ctx, &list, from_sched);
>  	}

I think this would look at lot better as:

	if (pt) {
		...
	} else if (this_hctx->queue->elevator) {
		...
	} else {
		...
	}

and add a comment above that first if condition on why this distinction
is being made.

-- 
Jens Axboe