From: "jianchao.wang" <jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>
To: Keith Busch <keith.busch@linux.intel.com>,
Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com>
Cc: "axboe@kernel.dk" <axboe@kernel.dk>,
"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
"sagi@grimberg.me" <sagi@grimberg.me>,
"linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
"ming.lei@redhat.com" <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
"keith.busch@intel.com" <keith.busch@intel.com>,
"hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] blk-mq: move timeout handling from queue to tagset
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 17:15:46 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8c7c5d05-c5aa-8553-2ae4-c9fa5a11a32a@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180718174534.GC30873@localhost.localdomain>
Hi Keith
On 07/19/2018 01:45 AM, Keith Busch wrote:
>>> + list_for_each_entry(q, &set->tag_list, tag_set_list) {
>>> /*
>>> * Request timeouts are handled as a forward rolling timer. If
>>> * we end up here it means that no requests are pending and
>>> @@ -881,7 +868,6 @@ static void blk_mq_timeout_work(struct work_struct *work)
>>> blk_mq_tag_idle(hctx);
>>> }
>>> }
>>> - blk_queue_exit(q);
The tags sharing fairness mechanism between different request_queues cannot work well here.
When timer is per-request_queue, if there is no request on one request_queue,
it could be idled. But now, with per-tagset timer, we cannot detect the idle one at all.
>
>>> + timer_setup(&set->timer, blk_mq_timed_out_timer, 0);
>>> + INIT_WORK(&set->timeout_work, blk_mq_timeout_work);
>>> [ ... ]
>>> --- a/include/linux/blk-mq.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/blk-mq.h
>>> @@ -86,6 +86,8 @@ struct blk_mq_tag_set {
>>>
>>> struct blk_mq_tags **tags;
>>>
>>> + struct timer_list timer;
>>> + struct work_struct timeout_work;
>> Can the timer and timeout_work data structures be replaced by a single
>> delayed_work instance?
> I think so. I wanted to keep blk_add_timer relatively unchanged for this
> proposal, so I followed the existing pattern with the timer kicking the
> work. I don't see why that extra indirection is necessary, so I think
> it's a great idea. Unless anyone knows a reason not to, we can collapse
> this into a single delayed work for both mq and legacy as a prep patch
> before this one.
mod_delayed_work_on is very tricky in our scenario. It will grab the pending
work entry and queue it again.
delayed_work.timer trigger
queue_work timeout_work delayed_work.timer not pending
mod_delayed_work_on
grab the pending timeout_work
re-arm the timer
The timeout_work would not be run.
Thanks
Jianchao
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-07-19 9:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-07-18 17:00 [RFC PATCH] blk-mq: move timeout handling from queue to tagset Keith Busch
2018-07-18 17:18 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-07-18 17:45 ` Keith Busch
2018-07-18 18:34 ` Bart Van Assche
2018-07-19 9:15 ` jianchao.wang [this message]
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=8c7c5d05-c5aa-8553-2ae4-c9fa5a11a32a@oracle.com \
--to=jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com \
--cc=Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=keith.busch@intel.com \
--cc=keith.busch@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--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