Re: [PATCH 06/16] mmc: core: replace waitqueue with worker

Adrian Hunter
2017-03-10T14:21:12Z

On 10/03/17 00:49, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 2:29 PM, Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> wrote:
>> On 09/02/17 17:33, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> The waitqueue in the host context is there to signal back from
>>> mmc_request_done() through mmc_wait_data_done() that the hardware
>>> is done with a command, and when the wait is over, the core
>>> will typically submit the next asynchronous request that is pending
>>> just waiting for the hardware to be available.
>>>
>>> This is in the way for letting the mmc_request_done() trigger the
>>> report up to the block layer that a block request is finished.
>>>
>>> Re-jig this as a first step, remvoving the waitqueue and introducing
>>> a work that will run after a completed asynchronous request,
>>> finalizing that request, including retransmissions, and eventually
>>> reporting back with a completion and a status code to the
>>> asynchronous issue method.
>>>
>>> This had the upside that we can remove the MMC_BLK_NEW_REQUEST
>>> status code and the "new_request" state in the request queue
>>> that is only there to make the state machine spin out
>>> the first time we send a request.
>>>
>>> Introduce a workqueue in the host for handling just this, and
>>> then a work and completion in the asynchronous request to deal
>>> with this mechanism.
>>>
>>> This is a central change that let us do many other changes since
>>> we have broken the submit and complete code paths in two, and we
>>> can potentially remove the NULL flushing of the asynchronous
>>> pipeline and report block requests as finished directly from
>>> the worker.
>>
>> This needs more thought. The completion should go straight to the mmc block
>> driver from the ->done() callback. And from there straight back to the
>> block layer if recovery is not needed. We want to stop using
>> mmc_start_areq() altogether because we never want to wait - we always want
>> to issue (if possible) and return.
>
> I don't quite follow this. Isn't what you request exactly what
> patch 15/16 "mmc: queue: issue requests in massive parallel"
> is doing?

There is the latency for the worker that runs mmc_finalize_areq() and then
another latency to wake up the worker that is running mmc_start_areq().
That is 2 wake-ups instead of 1.

As a side note, ideally we would be able to issue the next request from the
interrupt or soft interrupt context of the completion (i.e. 0 wake-ups
between requests), but we would probably have to look at the host API to
support that.

>
> The whole patch series leads up to that.
>
>> The core API to use is __mmc_start_req() but the block driver should
>> populate mrq->done with its own handler. i.e. change __mmc_start_req()
>>
>> - mrq->done = mmc_wait_done;
>> + if (!mrq->done)
>> + mrq->done = mmc_wait_done;
>>
>> mrq->done() would complete the request (e.g. via blk_complete_request()) if
>> it has no errors (and doesn't need polling), and wake up the queue thread to
>> finish up everything else and start the next request.
>
> I think this is what it does at the end of the patch series, patch 15/16.
> I have to split it somehow...
>
>> For the blk-mq port, the queue thread should also be retained, partly
>> because it solves some synchronization problems, but mostly because, at this
>> stage, we anyway don't have solutions for all the different ways the driver
>> can block.
>> (as listed here https://marc.info/?l=linux-mmc&m=148336571720463&w=2 )
>
> Essentially I take out that thread and replace it with this one worker
> introduced in this very patch. I agree the driver can block in many ways
> and that is why I need to have it running in process context, and this
> is what the worker introduced here provides.

The last time I looked at the blk-mq I/O scheduler code, it pulled up to
qdepth requests from the I/O scheduler and left them on a local list while
running ->queue_rq(). That means blocking in ->queue_rq() leaves some
number of requests in limbo (not issued but also not in the I/O scheduler)
for that time.

Maybe blk-mq should offer a pull interface to I/O scheduler users?