From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Martin Wilck <mwilck@suse.com>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
"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 v3 4/8] scsi: call scsi_stop_queue() without state_mutex held
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2023 07:44:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230608054444.GB11554@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ff669f59e3c42e5dec4920d705e2b8748ad600d5.camel@suse.com>
> > Thanks. This wasn't obvious to me from the current code. I'll add a
> > comment in the next version.
>
> The crucial question is now, is it sufficient to call
> blk_mq_quiesce_queue_nowait() under the mutex, or does the call to
> blk_mq_wait_quiesce_done() have to be under the mutex, too?
> The latter would actually kill off our attempt to fix the delay
> in fc_remote_port_delete() that was caused by repeated
> synchronize_rcu() calls.
>
> But if I understand you correctly, moving the wait out of the mutex
> should be ok. I'll update the series accordingly.
I can't think of a reason we'd want to lock over the wait, but Bart
knows this code way better than I do.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-08 5:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-07 18:22 [PATCH v3 0/8] scsi: fixes for targets with many LUNs, and scsi_target_block rework mwilck
2023-06-07 18:22 ` [PATCH v3 1/8] bsg: increase number of devices mwilck
2023-06-07 18:22 ` [PATCH v3 2/8] scsi: sg: " mwilck
2023-06-07 18:22 ` [PATCH v3 3/8] scsi: merge scsi_internal_device_block() and device_block() mwilck
2023-06-07 19:10 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-06-08 5:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-06-07 18:22 ` [PATCH v3 4/8] scsi: call scsi_stop_queue() without state_mutex held mwilck
2023-06-07 19:16 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-06-07 19:37 ` Martin Wilck
2023-06-07 20:07 ` Martin Wilck
2023-06-08 5:44 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2023-06-08 14:12 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-06-08 18:54 ` Mike Christie
2023-06-12 11:15 ` Martin Wilck
2023-06-12 13:41 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-06-07 18:22 ` [PATCH v3 5/8] scsi: don't wait for quiesce in scsi_stop_queue() mwilck
2023-06-08 5:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-06-07 18:22 ` [PATCH v3 6/8] scsi: don't wait for quiesce in scsi_device_block() mwilck
2023-06-07 18:22 ` [PATCH v3 7/8] scsi: have scsi_target_block() expect a scsi_target parent argument mwilck
2023-06-08 5:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-06-07 18:22 ` [PATCH v3 8/8] scsi: add Scsi_Host argument to scsi_target_block() mwilck
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=20230608054444.GB11554@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=Bart.VanAssche@sandisk.com \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--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