From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Guixin Liu <kanie@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: hch@lst.de, sagi@grimberg.me, kch@nvidia.com,
d.bogdanov@yadro.com, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 1/1] nvmet: support reservation feature
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2024 10:09:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241002080943.GA21262@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240929031410.31281-2-kanie@linux.alibaba.com>
On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 11:14:10AM +0800, Guixin Liu wrote:
> This patch implements the reservation feature, includes:
> 1. reservation register(register, unregister and replace).
> 2. reservation acquire(acquire, preempt, preempt and abort).
> 3. reservation release(release and clear).
> 4. reservation report.
> 5. set feature and get feature of reservation notify mask.
> 6. get log page of reservation event.
>
> And also make reservation configurable, one can set ns to support
> reservation before enable ns. The default of resv_enable is false.
The explanation feels a bit sparse. It could also mentioned that
no support for persistent reservation exists, and how this code
was tested.
Also, do you have a corresponding nvmetcli patch?
> +struct nvmet_pr_register_data {
> + __le64 crkey;
> + __le64 nrkey;
> +};
> +
> +struct nvmet_pr_acquire_data {
> + __le64 crkey;
> + __le64 prkey;
> +};
> +
> +struct nvmet_pr_release_data {
> + __le64 crkey;
> +};
Using little endian fields for purely in-memory data feels strange.
Is there a good reason for this?
> +static u16 nvmet_pr_update_reg_attr(struct nvmet_pr *pr,
> + struct nvmet_pr_registrant *reg,
> + void (*change_attr)(struct nvmet_pr_registrant *reg,
> + void *attr),
> + void *attr)
Please avoid the overly long line here. That's easiest done by
following the style used elsewhere in the nvme code using two
tab continuations:
static u16 nvmet_pr_update_reg_attr(struct nvmet_pr *pr,
struct nvmet_pr_registrant *reg,
void (*change_attr)(struct nvmet_pr_registrant *reg,
void *attr),
void *attr)
> + change_attr(new, attr);
> + list_replace_rcu(&holder->entry, &new->entry);
> + rcu_assign_pointer(pr->holder, new);
> + synchronize_rcu();
> + kfree(holder);
Does this really need a full blown expensive synchronize_rcu vs just a
cheaper kfree_rcu_mightsleep or kfree_rcu?
> + bool ignore_key = (bool)((cdw10 >> 3) & 1); /* Ignore existing key, bit 03 */
Overly long line. This might also benefit from adding symbolic constants
and/or extraction helpers.
The explicit cast to bool should also not be needed.
> + struct nvmet_pr_registrant *reg, *tmp;
> + struct nvmet_pr *pr = &req->ns->pr;
> + LIST_HEAD(free_list);
> +
> + lockdep_assert_held(&pr->pr_lock);
> +
> + rcu_assign_pointer(pr->holder, NULL);
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(reg, tmp, &pr->registrant_list, entry) {
> + list_del_rcu(®->entry);
> + if (!uuid_equal(&req->sq->ctrl->hostid, ®->hostid))
> + nvmet_pr_resv_preempted(pr, ®->hostid);
> + list_add(®->entry, &free_list);
> + }
> + synchronize_rcu();
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(reg, tmp, &free_list, entry) {
> + kfree(reg);
> + }
No nee for the outer braces here. But why do we we need the expensive
synchronize_rcu and two-step operation here anyway vs just using
kfree_rcu?
> + /*
> + * Dynamic controller, set cntlid to 0xffff.
> + */
> + ctrl_eds->cntlid = 0xffff;
NVME_CNTLID_DYNAMIC
> + req->pc_ref = xa_load(&req->ns->pr_per_ctrl_refs, req->sq->ctrl->cntlid);
Overly long line.
> + if (unlikely(!percpu_ref_tryget_live(&req->pc_ref->ref)))
> + return NVME_SC_INTERNAL;
> + return NVME_SC_SUCCESS;
> +}
> +
> +void nvmet_pr_put_ns_pc_ref(struct nvmet_req *req)
> +{
> + if (req->pc_ref)
> + percpu_ref_put(&req->pc_ref->ref);
> +}
It would be niceto have the NULL check inline to avoid the call for
for namespaces without reservation support.
> diff --git a/include/linux/nvme.h b/include/linux/nvme.h
> index 425573202295..b1be3d313bee 100644
> --- a/include/linux/nvme.h
> +++ b/include/linux/nvme.h
Please split out adding the new code points to nvme.h to a separate
prep patch.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-02 8:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-29 3:14 [PATCH v11 0/1] Implement the NVMe reservation feature Guixin Liu
2024-09-29 3:14 ` [PATCH v11 1/1] nvmet: support " Guixin Liu
2024-09-30 12:53 ` Dmitry Bogdanov
2024-10-05 14:26 ` Guixin Liu
2024-10-07 8:08 ` Dmitry Bogdanov
2024-10-08 7:27 ` Guixin Liu
2024-10-08 8:45 ` Dmitry Bogdanov
2024-10-08 9:25 ` Guixin Liu
2024-10-02 8:09 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2024-10-05 15:09 ` Guixin Liu
2024-10-07 6:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
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=20241002080943.GA21262@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=d.bogdanov@yadro.com \
--cc=kanie@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=kch@nvidia.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