From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: james.smart@broadcom.com (James Smart) Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2019 20:37:35 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] blk-mq: introduce blk_mq_complete_request_sync() In-Reply-To: <20190319010601.GA22459@ming.t460p> References: <20190318032950.17770-1-ming.lei@redhat.com> <20190318032950.17770-2-ming.lei@redhat.com> <4563485a-02c6-0bfe-d9ec-49adbd44671c@broadcom.com> <20190319010601.GA22459@ming.t460p> Message-ID: <606d3477-e7ed-d876-f132-11627a77a760@broadcom.com> On 3/18/2019 6:06 PM, Ming Lei wrote: > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019@10:37:08AM -0700, James Smart wrote: >> >> On 3/17/2019 8:29 PM, Ming Lei wrote: >>> In NVMe's error handler, follows the typical steps for tearing down >>> hardware: >>> >>> 1) stop blk_mq hw queues >>> 2) stop the real hw queues >>> 3) cancel in-flight requests via >>> blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter(tags, cancel_request, ...) >>> cancel_request(): >>> mark the request as abort >>> blk_mq_complete_request(req); >>> 4) destroy real hw queues >>> >>> However, there may be race between #3 and #4, because blk_mq_complete_request() >>> actually completes the request asynchronously. >>> >>> This patch introduces blk_mq_complete_request_sync() for fixing the >>> above race. >>> >> This won't help FC at all. Inherently, the "completion" has to be >> asynchronous as line traffic may be required. >> >> e.g. FC doesn't use nvme_complete_request() in the iterator routine. > Yeah, I saw the FC code, it is supposed to address the asynchronous > completion of blk_mq_complete_request() in error handler. > > Also I think it is always the correct thing to abort requests > synchronously in error handler, isn't it? > not sure I fully follow you, but if you're asking shouldn't it always be synchronous - why would that be the case ?? I really don't want a blocking thread that could block for several seconds on a single io to complete.? The controller has changed state and the queues frozen which should have been sufficient - but bottom-end io can still complete at any time. -- james