From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: don't grab rq's refcount in blk_mq_check_expired()
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 23:10:52 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YRPofJh/dKafevpV@T590> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210811145525.GA61802@C02WT3WMHTD6>
On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 08:55:25AM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 10:38:38PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Inside blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() we already grabbed request's
> > refcount before calling ->fn(), so needn't to grab it one more time
> > in blk_mq_check_expired().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > block/blk-mq.c | 25 +++++++------------------
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> > index d2725f94491d..4d3457d2957f 100644
> > --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> > +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> > @@ -917,6 +917,10 @@ void blk_mq_put_rq_ref(struct request *rq)
> > __blk_mq_free_request(rq);
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * This request won't be re-allocated because its refcount is held when
> > + * calling this callback.
> > + */
> > static bool blk_mq_check_expired(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> > struct request *rq, void *priv, bool reserved)
> > {
> > @@ -930,27 +934,12 @@ static bool blk_mq_check_expired(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> > return true;
> >
> > /*
> > - * We have reason to believe the request may be expired. Take a
> > - * reference on the request to lock this request lifetime into its
> > - * currently allocated context to prevent it from being reallocated in
> > - * the event the completion by-passes this timeout handler.
> > - *
> > - * If the reference was already released, then the driver beat the
> > - * timeout handler to posting a natural completion.
> > - */
> > - if (!refcount_inc_not_zero(&rq->ref))
> > - return true;
> > -
> > - /*
> > - * The request is now locked and cannot be reallocated underneath the
> > - * timeout handler's processing. Re-verify this exact request is truly
> > - * expired; if it is not expired, then the request was completed and
> > - * reallocated as a new request.
> > + * Re-verify this exact request is truly expired; if it is not expired,
> > + * then the request was completed and reallocated as a new request
> > + * after returning from blk_mq_check_expired().
> > */
> > if (blk_mq_req_expired(rq, next))
> > blk_mq_rq_timed_out(rq, reserved);
>
> There's no need to check expired twice if the iterator is already taking a
> reference. I had this double check because I didn't want to penalize normal IO
> by preventing it from completing while the timeout handler is running, but it
> looks like the current timeout iterator is going to do that anyway.
Indeed, will clean that in V2.
Thanks,
Ming
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-11 15:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-11 14:38 [PATCH] blk-mq: don't grab rq's refcount in blk_mq_check_expired() Ming Lei
2021-08-11 14:55 ` Keith Busch
2021-08-11 15:10 ` Ming Lei [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=YRPofJh/dKafevpV@T590 \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--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