From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF6DFC432C0 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 02:38:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C048622316 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 02:38:28 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="be11StNc" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727004AbfKSCi2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Nov 2019 21:38:28 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.81]:36146 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726996AbfKSCi1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Nov 2019 21:38:27 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1574131106; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=SQQK+dd+C6x1UYB7rg17UnNndtIRhUCCfcUEwZB60rA=; b=be11StNcer/EYPAUbip0sAa64adc4tzF5DCHVACZnbAZVeI5OUPjy08J53pStbqxBPBv94 BjrupDiQENImVwA/kxnqFFUQwZt9agn76fkXLsiBfJSzUCh1GMYba1sOipVEg2KFOpY9dU J0FnpNmuypdp85VlpEISEi1jiTL2OLA= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-265-eo5gnpnAMOyNhPqheNAh5Q-1; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 21:38:23 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66D13107ACC5; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 02:38:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ming.t460p (ovpn-8-19.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.8.19]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F5B35E251; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 02:38:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 10:38:09 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Keith Busch Cc: Sagi Grimberg , Jens Axboe , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, Christoph Hellwig , James Smart Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] blk-mq/nvme: use blk_mq_alloc_request() for NVMe's connect request Message-ID: <20191119023809.GD391@ming.t460p> References: <20191115104238.15107-1-ming.lei@redhat.com> <8f4402a0-967d-f12d-2f1a-949e1dda017c@grimberg.me> <20191116071754.GB18194@ming.t460p> <016afdbc-9c63-4193-e64b-aad91ba5fcc1@grimberg.me> <20191119003437.GA1950@redsun51.ssa.fujisawa.hgst.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191119003437.GA1950@redsun51.ssa.fujisawa.hgst.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-MC-Unique: eo5gnpnAMOyNhPqheNAh5Q-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org 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: > >=20 > > 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 i= s > > the case... >=20 > We still need timeout handling for connect commands, so bypassing the > block layer will need to figure out some other way to handle that. >=20 > 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