From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7C8CC432C3 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 02:38:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BFE622313 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 02:38:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="GvDCHh+4"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="be11StNc" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7BFE622313 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-nvme-bounces+linux-nvme=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20170209; h=Sender: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post: List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: List-Owner; bh=Z5hqhZK6R+S7IrTPhesAPCjkPqyvYQJwHaMZrPedDMo=; b=GvDCHh+4eGm/WL C4kRz9hBghD1ac7/3namRIUO6edk50UOhxw/FVZD6nXSuKqEzXhREcjAtlkjokiDoI2TttJpBffoH qp5vrG7XeUdGygLFpKP6vHJIdEI3ZvwfjY+x0OBkp2npboiycfnyVJh9dt8L7BPL9VXA0kFa5Vx4x ubUl9RFzYjnlNcFiWJDdenbIFVCdDKKGZweqJmM+nue2kVRTZpx49TrUs7RB8WX82MF1PJKVRMZWJ jDHm6gUZWAu5bRUgZc3JqDM/bCRgMqN1KZZsM4X7Lld4WF8iVQhsOa/JFOzjzUk0dkl9Pdlf8bZgB L+4wOFNIFTJqJbFdEmrA==; Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iWtPT-0006oA-9w; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 02:38:31 +0000 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.120] helo=us-smtp-1.mimecast.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1iWtPQ-0006nT-OV for linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 02:38:30 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1574131106; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=SQQK+dd+C6x1UYB7rg17UnNndtIRhUCCfcUEwZB60rA=; b=be11StNcer/EYPAUbip0sAa64adc4tzF5DCHVACZnbAZVeI5OUPjy08J53pStbqxBPBv94 BjrupDiQENImVwA/kxnqFFUQwZt9agn76fkXLsiBfJSzUCh1GMYba1sOipVEg2KFOpY9dU J0FnpNmuypdp85VlpEISEi1jiTL2OLA= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-265-eo5gnpnAMOyNhPqheNAh5Q-1; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 21:38:23 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66D13107ACC5; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 02:38:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ming.t460p (ovpn-8-19.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.8.19]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F5B35E251; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 02:38:13 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 10:38:09 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Keith Busch Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/3] blk-mq/nvme: use blk_mq_alloc_request() for NVMe's connect request Message-ID: <20191119023809.GD391@ming.t460p> References: <20191115104238.15107-1-ming.lei@redhat.com> <8f4402a0-967d-f12d-2f1a-949e1dda017c@grimberg.me> <20191116071754.GB18194@ming.t460p> <016afdbc-9c63-4193-e64b-aad91ba5fcc1@grimberg.me> <20191119003437.GA1950@redsun51.ssa.fujisawa.hgst.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20191119003437.GA1950@redsun51.ssa.fujisawa.hgst.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.14 X-MC-Unique: eo5gnpnAMOyNhPqheNAh5Q-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Disposition: inline X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20191118_183828_876074_370E1C1B X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 15.37 ) X-BeenThere: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Jens Axboe , Sagi Grimberg , James Smart , linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "Linux-nvme" Errors-To: linux-nvme-bounces+linux-nvme=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 09:34:37AM +0900, Keith Busch wrote: > On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 04:05:56PM -0800, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > > > > I'm starting to think we maybe need to get the connect out of the block > > layer execution if its such a big problem... Its a real shame if that is > > the case... > > We still need timeout handling for connect commands, so bypassing the > block layer will need to figure out some other way to handle that. > > This patch proposal doesn't really handle the timeouts very well either, > though: nvme_rdma_timeout() is going to end up referncing the wrong > queue rather than the one the request was submitted on. It doesn't > appear to really matter in the current code since it just resets the > entire controller, but if it ever wanted to do something queue specific... I am not sure it is an issue. Given timeout handler needs the queue for transporting the request exactly for handling timeout, right? Or when/what do you need the original submission queue for handling connect request timeout? Thanks, Ming _______________________________________________ Linux-nvme mailing list Linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvme