Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] block: export __blk_complete_request
To:     Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        James Bottomley <jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
        linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux SCSI List <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <1529027847-29085-1-git-send-email-jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>
 <CACVXFVMe4zSvfXfuSn0NFayeQqbmDwBBy1kcso=5iznT6EfpSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <3dd3f82a-5b68-f039-3a8a-7c5fe4e24c3e@oracle.com>
 <e5344293-b0b7-d2e0-f2e7-c0700efdfbe4@oracle.com>
 <CACVXFVMRCM6AvNJjAESbwOeJ_P5AZ+1C-7RfhE9L4u0T=_5h4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <3970fdc7-52d9-d05b-4118-059d48bf4f2d@oracle.com>
 <CACVXFVMPAdFbX3x-KUjHCQhb_rT6p9ROYHg63aUtEqdbitEaKQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   "jianchao.wang" <jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <7a77829a-ba5f-8975-edb0-ffdf25dc71d6@oracle.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Jun 2018 11:26:03 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACVXFVMPAdFbX3x-KUjHCQhb_rT6p9ROYHg63aUtEqdbitEaKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Ming

On 06/15/2018 11:20 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 11:04 AM, jianchao.wang
> <jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com> wrote:
>> Hi Ming
>>
>> Thanks for your kindly response.
>>
>> On 06/15/2018 10:56 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>>> IMO, ref-counter is just to fix the blk-mq req life recycle issue.
>>>>> It cannot replace the blk_mark_rq_complete which could avoid the race between
>>>>> timeout and io completion path.
>>>> The .timeout return BLK_EH_DONE doesn't always mean the request has been completed.
>>>> Such as scsi-mid layer, its .timeout callback return BLK_EH_DONE but the timed out
>>>> request is still in abort or eh process. What if a completion irq come during that ?
>>> For blk-mq, it is avoided by the atomic state change in
>>> __blk_mq_complete_request(),
>>> that is why I mentioned the question in my last reply.
>>>
>>
>> but blk_mq_check_expired doesn't do that.
>> do I miss anything ?
> 
> Right, that is the difference between blk-mq and legacy now, 

Sorry, I cannot follow your point.
blk_mq_check_expired doesn't do a atmoc state change from IN-FLIGHT to COMPLETE.
__blk_mq_complete_request could still proceed to complete a timed out request
which is in scsi abort or eh process. Is it really OK ?


Thanks
Jianchao


> then if scsi-mq
> drivers can work well, they should work well with the following change in the
> non-mq mode:
> 
> diff --git a/block/blk-timeout.c b/block/blk-timeout.c
> index 4b8a48d48ba1..9fce09d55652 100644
> --- a/block/blk-timeout.c
> +++ b/block/blk-timeout.c
> @@ -88,7 +88,6 @@ static void blk_rq_timed_out(struct request *req)
>         switch (ret) {
>         case BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER:
>                 blk_add_timer(req);
> -               blk_clear_rq_complete(req);
>                 break;
>         case BLK_EH_DONE:
>                 /*
> @@ -115,8 +114,7 @@ static void blk_rq_check_expired(struct request
> *rq, unsigned long *next_timeout
>                 /*
>                  * Check if we raced with end io completion
>                  */
> -               if (!blk_mark_rq_complete(rq))
> -                       blk_rq_timed_out(rq);
> +               blk_rq_timed_out(rq);
>         } else if (!*next_set || time_after(*next_timeout, deadline)) {
>                 *next_timeout = deadline;
>                 *next_set = 1;
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Ming Lei
>