From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: mwilck@suse.com
Cc: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com>,
James Bottomley <jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] scsi: simplify scsi_stop_queue()
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2023 07:27:10 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230607052710.GC20052@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230606193845.9627-4-mwilck@suse.com>
On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 09:38:45PM +0200, mwilck@suse.com wrote:
> Simplify scsi_stop_queue(), which is only called in this code path, to never
> wait for the quiescing to finish. Rather call blk_mq_wait_quiesce_done()
> from scsi_target_block() after iterating over all devices.
I don't think simplify is the right word here. The code isn't in any
way simpler, it just is more efficient an shifts work from
scsi_stop_queue to scsi_internal_device_block and scsi_target_block.
But the whole transformation is very confusing to me even if it looks
correct in the end, and it took me quite a while to understand it.
I'd suggest to further split this up and include some additional
cleanups:
1) remove scsi_internal_device_block and fold it into device_block
2) move the scsi_internal_device_block in what was
scsi_internal_device_block and now is device_block out
of state_mutex (and document in the commit log why this is safe)
3) remove scsi_stop_queue and open code it in the two callers, one
of which currently wants nowait semantics, and one that doesn't.
4) move the quiesce wait to scsi_target_block and make it per-tagset
> scsi_target_block(struct device *dev)
> {
> + struct Scsi_Host *shost = dev_to_shost(dev);
> +
> if (scsi_is_target_device(dev))
> starget_for_each_device(to_scsi_target(dev), NULL,
> device_block);
> else
> device_for_each_child(dev, NULL, target_block);
> +
> + /* Wait for ongoing scsi_queue_rq() calls to finish. */
> + if (!WARN_ON_ONCE(!shost))
How could host ever be NULL here? I can't see why we'd want this
check.
Btw, as far as I can tell scsi_target_block is never called for
a device that is a target device. It might be worth throwing in
another patch to remove support for that case and simplify things
further.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-07 5:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-06 19:38 [PATCH v2 0/3] scsi: fixes for targets with many LUNs mwilck
2023-06-06 19:38 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] bsg: increase number of devices mwilck
2023-06-07 5:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-06-06 19:38 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] scsi: sg: " mwilck
2023-06-07 5:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-06-06 19:38 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] scsi: simplify scsi_stop_queue() mwilck
2023-06-07 5:27 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2023-06-07 9:26 ` Martin Wilck
2023-06-07 9:36 ` Martin Wilck
2023-06-07 13:34 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-06-07 14:05 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-06-07 14:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-06-07 15:38 ` Martin Wilck
2023-06-07 16:39 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-06-07 17:56 ` Martin Wilck
2023-06-06 20:33 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] scsi: fixes for targets with many LUNs Bart Van Assche
2023-06-07 1:20 ` 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=20230607052710.GC20052@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=mwilck@suse.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).