From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Caleb Sander Mateos <csander@purestorage.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Uday Shankar <ushankar@purestorage.com>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] ublk: factor out ublk_start_io() helper
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2025 12:05:34 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aBBQDjLDkGWE63vT@fedora> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CADUfDZqqeeBTbgvCfHa8sr7Y7BetGbPzHYA1hMoN83kz+Bi54A@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 08:12:52AM -0700, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 7:28 AM Caleb Sander Mateos
> <csander@purestorage.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 27, 2025 at 6:05 AM Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Apr 26, 2025 at 10:58:00PM -0600, Caleb Sander Mateos wrote:
> > > > In preparation for calling it from outside ublk_dispatch_req(), factor
> > > > out the code responsible for setting up an incoming ublk I/O request.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Caleb Sander Mateos <csander@purestorage.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/block/ublk_drv.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> > > > 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c b/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c
> > > > index 01fc92051754..90a38a82f8cc 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/block/ublk_drv.c
> > > > @@ -1151,17 +1151,44 @@ static inline void __ublk_abort_rq(struct ublk_queue *ubq,
> > > > blk_mq_requeue_request(rq, false);
> > > > else
> > > > blk_mq_end_request(rq, BLK_STS_IOERR);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static void ublk_start_io(struct ublk_queue *ubq, struct request *req,
> > > > + struct ublk_io *io)
> > > > +{
> > > > + unsigned mapped_bytes = ublk_map_io(ubq, req, io);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* partially mapped, update io descriptor */
> > > > + if (unlikely(mapped_bytes != blk_rq_bytes(req))) {
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Nothing mapped, retry until we succeed.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * We may never succeed in mapping any bytes here because
> > > > + * of OOM. TODO: reserve one buffer with single page pinned
> > > > + * for providing forward progress guarantee.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (unlikely(!mapped_bytes)) {
> > > > + blk_mq_requeue_request(req, false);
> > > > + blk_mq_delay_kick_requeue_list(req->q,
> > > > + UBLK_REQUEUE_DELAY_MS);
> > > > + return;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + ublk_get_iod(ubq, req->tag)->nr_sectors =
> > > > + mapped_bytes >> 9;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + ublk_init_req_ref(ubq, req);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > static void ublk_dispatch_req(struct ublk_queue *ubq,
> > > > struct request *req,
> > > > unsigned int issue_flags)
> > > > {
> > > > int tag = req->tag;
> > > > struct ublk_io *io = &ubq->ios[tag];
> > > > - unsigned int mapped_bytes;
> > > >
> > > > pr_devel("%s: complete: qid %d tag %d io_flags %x addr %llx\n",
> > > > __func__, ubq->q_id, req->tag, io->flags,
> > > > ublk_get_iod(ubq, req->tag)->addr);
> > > >
> > > > @@ -1204,33 +1231,11 @@ static void ublk_dispatch_req(struct ublk_queue *ubq,
> > > > pr_devel("%s: update iod->addr: qid %d tag %d io_flags %x addr %llx\n",
> > > > __func__, ubq->q_id, req->tag, io->flags,
> > > > ublk_get_iod(ubq, req->tag)->addr);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > - mapped_bytes = ublk_map_io(ubq, req, io);
> > > > -
> > > > - /* partially mapped, update io descriptor */
> > > > - if (unlikely(mapped_bytes != blk_rq_bytes(req))) {
> > > > - /*
> > > > - * Nothing mapped, retry until we succeed.
> > > > - *
> > > > - * We may never succeed in mapping any bytes here because
> > > > - * of OOM. TODO: reserve one buffer with single page pinned
> > > > - * for providing forward progress guarantee.
> > > > - */
> > > > - if (unlikely(!mapped_bytes)) {
> > > > - blk_mq_requeue_request(req, false);
> > > > - blk_mq_delay_kick_requeue_list(req->q,
> > > > - UBLK_REQUEUE_DELAY_MS);
> > > > - return;
> > > > - }
> > >
> > > Here it needs to break ublk_dispatch_req() for not completing the
> > > uring_cmd, however ublk_start_io() can't support it.
> >
> > Good catch. How about I change ublk_start_io() to return a bool
> > indicating whether the I/O was successfully started?
That is doable.
>
> Thinking a bit more about this, is the existing behavior of returning
> early from ublk_dispatch_req() correct for UBLK_IO_NEED_GET_DATA? It
The requeue isn't related with UBLK_IO_NEED_GET_DATA actually, when
UBLK_IO_FLAG_NEED_GET_DATA is cleared.
It is usually caused by running out of pages, so we have to requeue until
ublk_map_io() can make progress.
> makes sense for the initial ublk_dispatch_req() because the req will
> be requeued without consuming the ublk fetch request, allowing it to
> be reused for a subsequent I/O. But for UBLK_IO_NEED_GET_DATA, doesn't
> it mean the io_uring_cmd will never complete? I would think it would
> be better to return an error code in this case.
The same request will be requeued and re-dispatched to ublk driver after
a short delay, so the uring_cmd won't be never complete.
Anyway, it isn't another story, which shouldn't be added into this
cleanup patch.
Thanks,
Ming
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-29 4:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-27 4:57 [PATCH 0/8] ublk: simplify NEED_GET_DATA handling and request lookup Caleb Sander Mateos
2025-04-27 4:57 ` [PATCH 1/8] ublk: factor out ublk_commit_and_fetch Caleb Sander Mateos
2025-04-27 4:57 ` [PATCH 2/8] ublk: fix "immepdately" typo in comment Caleb Sander Mateos
2025-04-27 12:58 ` Ming Lei
2025-04-27 4:57 ` [PATCH 3/8] ublk: remove misleading "ubq" in "ubq_complete_io_cmd()" Caleb Sander Mateos
2025-04-27 13:01 ` Ming Lei
2025-04-27 4:57 ` [PATCH 4/8] ublk: don't log uring_cmd cmd_op in ublk_dispatch_req() Caleb Sander Mateos
2025-04-27 13:03 ` Ming Lei
2025-04-27 4:58 ` [PATCH 5/8] ublk: factor out ublk_start_io() helper Caleb Sander Mateos
2025-04-27 13:05 ` Ming Lei
2025-04-28 14:28 ` Caleb Sander Mateos
2025-04-28 15:12 ` Caleb Sander Mateos
2025-04-29 4:05 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2025-04-29 14:55 ` Caleb Sander Mateos
2025-04-30 22:44 ` Caleb Sander Mateos
2025-04-27 4:58 ` [PATCH 6/8] ublk: don't call ublk_dispatch_req() for NEED_GET_DATA Caleb Sander Mateos
2025-04-27 13:10 ` Ming Lei
2025-04-27 4:58 ` [PATCH 7/8] ublk: check UBLK_IO_FLAG_OWNED_BY_SRV in ublk_abort_queue() Caleb Sander Mateos
2025-04-27 13:13 ` Ming Lei
2025-04-27 4:58 ` [PATCH 8/8] ublk: store request pointer in ublk_io Caleb Sander Mateos
2025-04-27 13:25 ` Ming Lei
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=aBBQDjLDkGWE63vT@fedora \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=csander@purestorage.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ushankar@purestorage.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