Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: Properly init bios from blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx()

Ming Lei
2022-10-24T23:46:07Z

On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 11:56:21AM +0100, John Garry wrote:
> On 23/10/2022 14:12, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> > > index 8070b6c10e8d..260adeb2e455 100644
> > > --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> > > +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> > > @@ -402,6 +402,10 @@ static struct request *blk_mq_rq_ctx_init(struct blk_mq_alloc_data *data,
> > > }
> > > }
> > > + rq->__data_len = 0;
> > > + rq->__sector = (sector_t) -1;
> > > + rq->bio = rq->biotail = NULL;
> > > +
> > > return rq;
> > > }
> > > @@ -591,9 +595,6 @@ struct request *blk_mq_alloc_request(struct request_queue *q, blk_opf_t opf,
> > > if (!rq)
> > > goto out_queue_exit;
> > > }
> > > - rq->__data_len = 0;
> > > - rq->__sector = (sector_t) -1;
> > > - rq->bio = rq->biotail = NULL;
> > This patch looks not good, why do you switch to initialize the three fields
> > twice in fast path?
>
> Can you please show me how these are initialized twice?

blk_mq_bio_to_request() is one which setup these fields, then you add
another one in blk_mq_rq_ctx_init().

>
> If there is a real concern with this then we go with my original idea, which
> was to copy the init method of blk_mq_alloc_request() (in
> blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx())
>
> >
> > BTW, we know blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx() has big trouble, so please
> > avoid to extend it to other use cases.
>
> Yeah, I know this,

Did you know the exact issue on nvme-tcp, nvme-rdma or nvme-fc maybe
with blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx()?

> but sometimes we just need to allocate for a specific HW
> queue...
>
> For my usecase of interest, it should not impact if the cpumask of the HW
> queue goes offline after selecting the cpu in blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx(),
> so any race is ok ... I think.
>
> However it should be still possible to make blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx() more
> robust. How about using something like work_on_cpu_safe() to allocate and
> execute the request with blk_mq_alloc_request() on a cpu associated with the
> HW queue, such that we know the cpu is online and stays online until we
> execute it? Or also extent to work_on_cpumask_safe() variant, so that we
> don't need to try all cpus in the mask (to see if online)?

But all cpus on this hctx->cpumask could become offline.

Thanks,
Ming