From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Yufen Yu <yuyufen@huawei.com>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, hch@lst.de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] block: defer flush request no matter whether we have elevator
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 16:06:16 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200717080616.GB670561@T590> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200716065201.3213045-1-yuyufen@huawei.com>
On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 02:52:01AM -0400, Yufen Yu wrote:
> Commit 7520872c0cf4 ("block: don't defer flushes on blk-mq + scheduling")
> tried to fix deadlock for cycled wait between flush requests and data
> request into flush_data_in_flight. The former holded all driver tags
> and wait for data request completion, but the latter can not complete
> for waiting free driver tags.
>
> After commit 923218f6166a ("blk-mq: don't allocate driver tag upfront
> for flush rq"), flush requests will not get driver tag before queuing
> into flush queue.
>
> * With elevator, flush request just get sched_tags before inserting
> flush queue. It will not get driver tag until issue them to driver.
> data request on list fq->flush_data_in_flight will complete in
> the end.
>
> * Without elevator, each flush request will get a driver tag when
> allocate request. Then data request on fq->flush_data_in_flight
> don't worry about lacking driver tag.
>
> In both of these cases, cycled wait cannot be true. So we may allow
> to defer flush request.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yufen Yu <yuyufen@huawei.com>
> ---
> block/blk-flush.c | 9 ++-------
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-flush.c b/block/blk-flush.c
> index 15ae0155ec07..24c208d21793 100644
> --- a/block/blk-flush.c
> +++ b/block/blk-flush.c
> @@ -286,13 +286,8 @@ static void blk_kick_flush(struct request_queue *q, struct blk_flush_queue *fq,
> if (fq->flush_pending_idx != fq->flush_running_idx || list_empty(pending))
> return;
>
> - /* C2 and C3
> - *
> - * For blk-mq + scheduling, we can risk having all driver tags
> - * assigned to empty flushes, and we deadlock if we are expecting
> - * other requests to make progress. Don't defer for that case.
> - */
> - if (!list_empty(&fq->flush_data_in_flight) && q->elevator &&
> + /* C2 and C3 */
> + if (!list_empty(&fq->flush_data_in_flight) &&
> time_before(jiffies,
> fq->flush_pending_since + FLUSH_PENDING_TIMEOUT))
> return;
> --
> 2.25.4
>
Reviewed-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
--
Ming
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-17 8:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-16 6:52 [RFC PATCH] block: defer flush request no matter whether we have elevator Yufen Yu
2020-07-17 8:06 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2020-07-17 13:14 ` Jens Axboe
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=20200717080616.GB670561@T590 \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=yuyufen@huawei.com \
/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