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=-6.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham 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 31EC5C433E0 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 22:53:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D8CB223C6 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 22:53:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="fpGKfBo5" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729822AbgFSWxF (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jun 2020 18:53:05 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-2.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.81]:20612 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729849AbgFSWxC (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Jun 2020 18:53:02 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1592607180; 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: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=9CJu6myIAK1C73a5dXRhHLZ2q+lZI6WnZDuAQCWumLE=; b=fpGKfBo5gnoXjzHZ2jegRIM2aPseoa1SgBUvRUTm7DQC0IImG5jTOXh+PwbuzCHm4mCIYz lnCO6ITR/PjKf5Qfmj19Lt4noN5UZooYECJPIQrxQ8uvUQiOj0eKpQONLX1hAIO9pMSfQX o9o7DdMYbEsExGLo8FXXQejyEJc6oqM= 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-325-xKlnJA9TO6iFUWp-XLM5Sg-1; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 18:52:58 -0400 X-MC-Unique: xKlnJA9TO6iFUWp-XLM5Sg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C09DB800053; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 22:52:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from T590 (ovpn-12-19.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.19]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 620DF1001E91; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 22:52:46 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2020 06:52:41 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Mike Snitzer Cc: dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk, Bart Van Assche Subject: Re: dm-rq: don't call blk_mq_queue_stopped in dm_stop_queue() Message-ID: <20200619225241.GC353853@T590> References: <20200619084214.337449-1-ming.lei@redhat.com> <20200619094250.GA18410@redhat.com> <20200619101142.GA339442@T590> <20200619160657.GA24520@redhat.com> <20200619174040.GA24968@redhat.com> <20200619223744.GB353853@T590> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200619223744.GB353853@T590> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 06:37:44AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 01:40:41PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 19 2020 at 12:06pm -0400, > > Mike Snitzer wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jun 19 2020 at 6:11am -0400, > > > Ming Lei wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Mike, > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 05:42:50AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > > > > Hi Ming, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the patch! But I'm having a hard time understanding what > > > > > you've written in the patch header, > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 19 2020 at 4:42am -0400, > > > > > Ming Lei wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > dm-rq won't stop queue, meantime blk-mq won't stop one queue too, so > > > > > > remove the check. > > > > > > > > > > It'd be helpful if you could unpack this with more detail before going on > > > > > to explain why using blk_queue_quiesced, despite dm-rq using > > > > > blk_mq_queue_stopped, would also be ineffective. > > > > > > > > > > SO: > > > > > > > > > > > dm-rq won't stop queue > > > > > > > > > > 1) why won't dm-rq stop the queue? Do you mean it won't reliably > > > > > _always_ stop the queue because of the blk_mq_queue_stopped() check? > > > > > > > > device mapper doesn't call blk_mq_stop_hw_queue or blk_mq_stop_hw_queues. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > meantime blk-mq won't stop one queue too, so remove the check. > > > > > > > > > > 2) Meaning?: blk_mq_queue_stopped() will return true even if only one hw > > > > > queue is stopped, given blk-mq must stop all hw queues a positive return > > > > > from this blk_mq_queue_stopped() check is incorrectly assuming it meanss > > > > > all hw queues are stopped. > > > > > > > > blk-mq won't call blk_mq_stop_hw_queue or blk_mq_stop_hw_queues for > > > > dm-rq's queue too, so dm-rq's hw queue won't be stopped. > > > > > > > > BTW blk_mq_stop_hw_queue or blk_mq_stop_hw_queues are supposed to be > > > > used for throttling queue. > > > > > > I'm going to look at actually stopping the queue (using one of these > > > interfaces). I didn't realize I wasn't actually stopping the queue. > > > The intent was to do so. > > > > > > In speaking with Jens yesterday about freeze vs stop: it is clear that > > > dm-rq needs to still be able to allocate new requests, but _not_ call > > > the queue_rq to issue the requests, while "stopped" (due to dm-mpath > > > potentially deferring retries of failed requests because of path failure > > > while quiescing the queue during DM device suspend). But that freezing > > > the queue goes too far because it won't allow such request allocation. > > > > Seems I'm damned if I do (stop) or damned if I don't (new reports of > > requests completing after DM device suspend's > > blk_mq_quiesce_queue()+dm_wait_for_completion()). > > request(but not new) completing is possible after blk_mq_quiesce_queue()+ > dm_wait_for_completion, because blk_mq_rq_inflight() only checks INFLIGHT > request. If all requests are marked as MQ_RQ_COMPLETE, blk_mq_rq_inflight() > still may return false. However, MQ_RQ_COMPLETE is one transient state. > > So what does dm-rq expect from dm_wait_for_completion()? > > If it is just no new request entering dm_queue_rq(), there shouldn't be > issue. > > If dm-rq hopes there aren't any real inflight request(MQ_RQ_COMPLETE & > MQ_RQ_INFLIGHT), we can change blk_mq_rq_inflight to support that. Hi Mike, Please test the following patch and see if the issue can be fixed: >From faf0f9f15627446e8c35db518e37a4a2e4323eb2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ming Lei Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2020 06:45:49 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] blk-mq: cover request of MQ_RQ_COMPLETE as inflight in blk_mq_rq_inflight When request is marked as MQ_RQ_COMPLETE, ->complete isn't called & done yet, and driver may expect that there isn't any driver related activity since blk_mq_queue_inflight() returns. Fixes it by covering request of MQ_RQ_COMPLETE as inflight in blk_mq_rq_inflight(). Cc: Mike Snitzer Signed-off-by: Ming Lei --- block/blk-mq.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c index 4f57d27bfa73..7bc084b5bc37 100644 --- a/block/blk-mq.c +++ b/block/blk-mq.c @@ -831,7 +831,7 @@ static bool blk_mq_rq_inflight(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, struct request *rq, * If we find a request that is inflight and the queue matches, * we know the queue is busy. Return false to stop the iteration. */ - if (rq->state == MQ_RQ_IN_FLIGHT && rq->q == hctx->queue) { + if (rq->state != MQ_RQ_IDLE && rq->q == hctx->queue) { bool *busy = priv; *busy = true; -- 2.25.2 Thanks, Ming