From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Keith Busch <kbusch@meta.com>,
linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, sagi@grimberg.me,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] nvme-pci: fix timeout request state check
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 17:35:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230118163545.GA7411@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y8gOlnKNsOTPq1Yj@kbusch-mbp>
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 08:21:58AM -0700, Keith Busch wrote:
> > The point is still that "started" is the wrong check here and relies
> > on an implementation detail. I think we're better off with an explicit
> > IDLE check and a big fat comment.
>
> So you want the check to look like this instead?
>
> ---
> @@ -1362,7 +1362,8 @@ static enum blk_eh_timer_return nvme_timeout(struct request *req)
> else
> nvme_poll_irqdisable(nvmeq);
>
> - if (blk_mq_request_completed(req)) {
> + if (blk_mq_request_completed(req) ||
> + blk_mq_rq_state(req) == MQ_RQ_IDLE) {
> dev_warn(dev->ctrl.device,
> "I/O %d QID %d timeout, completion polled\n",
> req->tag, nvmeq->qid);
> --
Or maybe just:
if (blk_mq_rq_state(req) != MQ_RQ_IN_FLIGHT) {
..
> Alternatively, I also considered moving the IDLE state setting to when
> the request is actually freed, which might make more sense and works
> without changing the nvme driver:
I like that idea, but this touches gnarly code, so it'll need good
testing.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-18 16:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-18 5:22 [PATCHv2] nvme-pci: fix timeout request state check Keith Busch
2023-01-18 5:33 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-01-18 5:52 ` Keith Busch
2023-01-18 7:33 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-01-18 15:21 ` Keith Busch
2023-01-18 16:35 ` Christoph Hellwig [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=20230118163545.GA7411@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=kbusch@meta.com \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
/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