public inbox for linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com>
Cc: "tom.leiming@gmail.com" <tom.leiming@gmail.com>,
	"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
	"hch@infradead.org" <hch@infradead.org>,
	"sagi@grimberg.me" <sagi@grimberg.me>,
	"snitzer@redhat.com" <snitzer@redhat.com>,
	"martin.petersen@oracle.com" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	"linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
	"axboe@fb.com" <axboe@fb.com>,
	"linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org>,
	"jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com" <jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	"loberman@redhat.com" <loberman@redhat.com>,
	"dm-devel@redhat.com" <dm-devel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] block: don't call blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue() in case of BLK_STS_RESOURCE
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 06:44:16 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170919224410.GA21829@ming.t460p> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1505846549.2671.52.camel@wdc.com>

On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 06:42:30PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 00:55 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:49 AM, Bart Van Assche
> > <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2017-09-20 at 00:04 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > Run queue at end_io is definitely wrong, because blk-mq has SCHED_RESTART
> > > > to do that already.
> > > 
> > > Sorry but I disagree. If SCHED_RESTART is set that causes the blk-mq core to
> > > reexamine the software queues and the hctx dispatch list but not the requeue
> > > list. If a block driver returns BLK_STS_RESOURCE then requests end up on the
> > > requeue list. Hence the following code in scsi_end_request():
> > 
> > That doesn't need SCHED_RESTART, because it is requeue's
> > responsibility to do that,
> > see blk_mq_requeue_work(), which will run hw queue at the end of this func.
> 
> That's not what I was trying to explain. What I was trying to explain is that
> every block driver that can cause a request to end up on the requeue list is
> responsible for kicking the requeue list at a later time. Hence the
> kblockd_schedule_work(&sdev->requeue_work) call in the SCSI core and the
> blk_mq_kick_requeue_list() and blk_mq_delay_kick_requeue_list() calls in the
> dm code. What I would like to see is measurement results for dm-mpath without
> this patch series and a call to kick the requeue list added to the dm-mpath
> end_io code.

For this issue, it isn't same between SCSI and dm-rq.

We don't need to run queue in .end_io of dm, and the theory is
simple, otherwise it isn't performance issue, and should be I/O hang.

1) every dm-rq's request is 1:1 mapped to SCSI's request

2) if there is any mapped SCSI request not finished, either
in-flight or in requeue list or whatever, there will be one
corresponding dm-rq's request in-flight

3) once the mapped SCSI request is completed, dm-rq's completion
path will be triggered and dm-rq's queue will be rerun because of
SCHED_RESTART in dm-rq

So the hw queue of dm-rq has been run in dm-rq's completion path
already, right? Why do we need to do it again in the hot path?

-- 
Ming

  reply	other threads:[~2017-09-19 22:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20170915164456.9803-1-ming.lei@redhat.com>
2017-09-15 16:44 ` [PATCH 1/5] block: don't call blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue() in case of BLK_STS_RESOURCE Ming Lei
2017-09-15 17:57   ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-17 12:40     ` Ming Lei
2017-09-18 15:18       ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-19  5:43         ` Ming Lei
2017-09-19 15:36           ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-19 15:56             ` Mike Snitzer
2017-09-19 16:04               ` Ming Lei
2017-09-19 16:49                 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-19 16:55                   ` Ming Lei
2017-09-19 18:42                     ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-19 22:44                       ` Ming Lei [this message]
2017-09-19 23:25                         ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-19 23:50                           ` Mike Snitzer
2017-09-20  1:13                             ` Ming Lei
2017-09-20  1:19                   ` Ming Lei
2017-09-19 15:48           ` Mike Snitzer
2017-09-19 15:52             ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-19 16:03               ` Mike Snitzer
2017-09-19 16:07             ` Ming Lei

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=20170919224410.GA21829@ming.t460p \
    --to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com \
    --cc=axboe@fb.com \
    --cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=loberman@redhat.com \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
    --cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
    --cc=tom.leiming@gmail.com \
    /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