From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
Cc: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
James Smart <james.smart@broadcom.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] blk-mq/nvme: use blk_mq_alloc_request() for NVMe's connect request
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 10:38:09 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191119023809.GD391@ming.t460p> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191119003437.GA1950@redsun51.ssa.fujisawa.hgst.com>
On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 09:34:37AM +0900, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 04:05:56PM -0800, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> >
> > I'm starting to think we maybe need to get the connect out of the block
> > layer execution if its such a big problem... Its a real shame if that is
> > the case...
>
> We still need timeout handling for connect commands, so bypassing the
> block layer will need to figure out some other way to handle that.
>
> This patch proposal doesn't really handle the timeouts very well either,
> though: nvme_rdma_timeout() is going to end up referncing the wrong
> queue rather than the one the request was submitted on. It doesn't
> appear to really matter in the current code since it just resets the
> entire controller, but if it ever wanted to do something queue specific...
I am not sure it is an issue.
Given timeout handler needs the queue for transporting the request
exactly for handling timeout, right?
Or when/what do you need the original submission queue for handling
connect request timeout?
Thanks,
Ming
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-11-19 2:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-11-15 10:42 [PATCH RFC 0/3] blk-mq/nvme: use blk_mq_alloc_request() for NVMe's connect request Ming Lei
2019-11-15 10:42 ` [PATCH RFC 1/3] block: reuse one scheduler/flush field for private request's data Ming Lei
2019-11-15 10:42 ` [PATCH RFC 2/3] nvme: don't use blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx() for allocating connect request Ming Lei
2019-11-15 10:42 ` [PATCH RFC 3/3] blk-mq: kill blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx() Ming Lei
2019-11-15 22:38 ` [PATCH RFC 0/3] blk-mq/nvme: use blk_mq_alloc_request() for NVMe's connect request Sagi Grimberg
2019-11-16 7:17 ` Ming Lei
2019-11-17 1:24 ` Bart Van Assche
2019-11-17 4:12 ` Ming Lei
2019-11-18 23:27 ` Bart Van Assche
2019-11-19 0:05 ` Sagi Grimberg
2019-11-19 0:34 ` Keith Busch
2019-11-19 1:43 ` Sagi Grimberg
2019-11-19 2:38 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2019-11-19 2:33 ` Ming Lei
2019-11-19 17:56 ` James Smart
2019-11-20 6:35 ` Ming Lei
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=20191119023809.GD391@ming.t460p \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=james.smart@broadcom.com \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox