From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@oracle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: don't fail driver tag allocation because of inactive hctx
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 16:33:49 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200605083349.GA2392879@T590> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <38b4c7a3-057f-c52c-993b-523660085e3c@huawei.com>
On Thu, Jun 04, 2020 at 01:45:09PM +0100, John Garry wrote:
>
> > > That's your patch - ok, I can try.
> > >
>
> I still get timeouts and sometimes the same driver tag message occurs:
>
> 1014.232417] run queue from wrong CPU 0, hctx active
> [ 1014.237692] run queue from wrong CPU 0, hctx active
> [ 1014.243014] run queue from wrong CPU 0, hctx active
> [ 1014.248370] run queue from wrong CPU 0, hctx active
> [ 1014.253725] run queue from wrong CPU 0, hctx active
> [ 1014.259252] run queue from wrong CPU 0, hctx active
> [ 1014.264492] run queue from wrong CPU 0, hctx active
> [ 1014.269453] irq_shutdown irq146
> [ 1014.272752] CPU55: shutdown
> [ 1014.275552] psci: CPU55 killed (polled 0 ms)
> [ 1015.151530] CPU56: shutdownr=1621MiB/s,w=0KiB/s][r=415k,w=0 IOPS][eta
> 00m:00s]
> [ 1015.154322] psci: CPU56 killed (polled 0 ms)
> [ 1015.184345] CPU57: shutdown
> [ 1015.187143] psci: CPU57 killed (polled 0 ms)
> [ 1015.223388] CPU58: shutdown
> [ 1015.226174] psci: CPU58 killed (polled 0 ms)
> long sleep 8
> [ 1045.234781] scsi_times_out req=0xffff041fa13e6300[r=0,w=0 IOPS][eta
> 04m:30s]
>
> [...]
>
> > >
> > > I thought that if all the sched tags are put, then we should have no driver
> > > tag for that same hctx, right? That seems to coincide with the timeout (30
> > > seconds later)
> >
> > That is weird, if there is driver tag found, that means the request is
> > in-flight and can't be completed by HW.
>
> In blk_mq_hctx_has_requests(), we iterate the sched tags (when
> hctx->sched_tags is set). So can some requests not have a sched tag (even
> for scheduler set for the queue)?
>
> I assume you have integrated
> > global host tags patch in your test,
>
> No, but the LLDD does not use request->tag - it generates its own.
>
> and suggest you to double check
> > hisi_sas's queue mapping which has to be exactly same with blk-mq's
> > mapping.
> >
>
> scheduler=none is ok, so I am skeptical of a problem there.
Please try the following patch, and we may not drain in-flight
requests correctly:
diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.c b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
index 97bb650f0ed6..ae110e2754bf 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq-tag.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
@@ -265,6 +265,7 @@ struct bt_tags_iter_data {
#define BT_TAG_ITER_RESERVED (1 << 0)
#define BT_TAG_ITER_STARTED (1 << 1)
+#define BT_TAG_ITER_STATIC_RQS (1 << 2)
static bool bt_tags_iter(struct sbitmap *bitmap, unsigned int bitnr, void *data)
{
@@ -280,7 +281,10 @@ static bool bt_tags_iter(struct sbitmap *bitmap, unsigned int bitnr, void *data)
* We can hit rq == NULL here, because the tagging functions
* test and set the bit before assining ->rqs[].
*/
- rq = tags->rqs[bitnr];
+ if (iter_data->flags & BT_TAG_ITER_STATIC_RQS)
+ rq = tags->static_rqs[bitnr];
+ else
+ rq = tags->rqs[bitnr];
if (!rq)
return true;
if ((iter_data->flags & BT_TAG_ITER_STARTED) &&
@@ -335,11 +339,13 @@ static void __blk_mq_all_tag_iter(struct blk_mq_tags *tags,
* indicates whether or not @rq is a reserved request. Return
* true to continue iterating tags, false to stop.
* @priv: Will be passed as second argument to @fn.
+ *
+ * Caller has to pass the tag map from which requests are allocated.
*/
void blk_mq_all_tag_iter(struct blk_mq_tags *tags, busy_tag_iter_fn *fn,
void *priv)
{
- return __blk_mq_all_tag_iter(tags, fn, priv, 0);
+ return __blk_mq_all_tag_iter(tags, fn, priv, BT_TAG_ITER_STATIC_RQS);
}
/**
Thanks,
Ming
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-05 8:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-03 10:51 [PATCH] blk-mq: don't fail driver tag allocation because of inactive hctx Ming Lei
2020-06-03 11:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-06-03 13:36 ` Ming Lei
2020-06-03 16:16 ` John Garry
2020-06-04 5:22 ` Dongli Zhang
2020-06-04 10:24 ` John Garry
2020-06-04 11:26 ` Ming Lei
2020-06-04 11:50 ` John Garry
2020-06-04 12:08 ` Ming Lei
2020-06-04 12:45 ` John Garry
2020-06-04 13:00 ` Ming Lei
2020-06-04 14:11 ` John Garry
2020-06-05 0:59 ` Ming Lei
2020-06-05 7:24 ` John Garry
2020-06-05 7:31 ` Ming Lei
2020-06-04 13:28 ` Ming Lei
2020-06-05 8:33 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2020-06-05 9:27 ` John Garry
2020-06-05 11:08 ` John Garry
2020-06-03 18:12 ` Christoph Hellwig
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=20200605083349.GA2392879@T590 \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dongli.zhang@oracle.com \
--cc=dwagner@suse.de \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
/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