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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7a77829a-ba5f-8975-edb0-ffdf25dc71d6@oracle.com>
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>
 <7a77829a-ba5f-8975-edb0-ffdf25dc71d6@oracle.com>
From:   Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Jun 2018 12:03:12 +0800
Message-ID: <CACVXFVO+GsQHCgoc6GuP1osnWprfeGrsikBgxj49+KiJoOsvBA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] block: export __blk_complete_request
To:     "jianchao.wang" <jianchao.w.wang@oracle.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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 11:26 AM, jianchao.wang
<jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com> wrote:
> 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 ?

That is the idea of Christoph's patchset of 'complete requests from ->timeout',
then drivers need to cover race between timeout and normal completeion.

But at least the request won't be completed twice because of the atomic
state change in __blk_mq_complete_request().

So what is your real concern about blk-mq's timeout?

Thanks,
Ming