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>
 <7a77829a-ba5f-8975-edb0-ffdf25dc71d6@oracle.com>
 <CACVXFVO+GsQHCgoc6GuP1osnWprfeGrsikBgxj49+KiJoOsvBA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   "jianchao.wang" <jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <adf25c83-550a-3095-5d8a-c241329a2e3b@oracle.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Jun 2018 13:10:00 +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: <CACVXFVO+GsQHCgoc6GuP1osnWprfeGrsikBgxj49+KiJoOsvBA@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

Thanks for your kindly response

On 06/15/2018 12:03 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> 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',

Yes, I used to read that mail thread.

> 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().

Yes

> 
> So what is your real concern about blk-mq's timeout?
I concern whether the current drivers have bee ready for taking this task currently.
At least, for scsi, if I try to trigger timeout and completion path concurrently, system would crash.
4.17.rc7 or 4.18 with a patch that change state in blk_mq_check_expired will survive.

Thanks
jianchao 

> 
> Thanks,
> Ming
>