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
References: <1542103016-21037-1-git-send-email-jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>
 <1542103016-21037-4-git-send-email-jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>
 <d8d88eff-e3eb-542d-d4fa-06b6aff97ba0@kernel.dk> <94ec3d97-f75f-645d-94f1-24d3fd476940@oracle.com>
In-Reply-To: <94ec3d97-f75f-645d-94f1-24d3fd476940@oracle.com>
From:   Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Nov 2018 11:02:59 +0800
Message-ID: <CACVXFVNZ1p4wV6S_FRyKssbUT9CV-aXZ=iRGQ-tY05v_7vxPnw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 3/5] blk-mq: ensure hctx to be ran on mapped cpu when
 issue directly
To:     "jianchao.wang" <jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
        linux-block <linux-block@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 Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 10:15 AM jianchao.wang
<jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jens
>
> Thanks for your kindly response.
>
> On 11/13/18 9:44 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On 11/13/18 2:56 AM, Jianchao Wang wrote:
> >> When issue request directly and the task is migrated out of the
> >> original cpu where it allocates request, hctx could be ran on
> >> the cpu where it is not mapped.
> >> To fix this,
> >>  - insert the request forcibly if BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING is set.
> >>  - check whether the current is mapped to the hctx, if not, insert
> >>    forcibly.
> >>  - invoke __blk_mq_issue_directly under preemption disabled.
> >
> > I'm not too crazy about this one, adding a get/put_cpu() in the hot
> > path, and a cpumask test. The fact is that most/no drivers care
> > about strict placement. We always try to do so, if convenient,
> > since it's faster, but this seems to be doing the opposite.
> >
> > I'd be more inclined to have a driver flag if it needs guaranteed
> > placement, using one an ops BLK_MQ_F_STRICT_CPU flag or similar.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
>
> I'd inclined blk-mq should comply with a unified rule, no matter the
> issuing directly path or inserting one. Then blk-mq would have a simpler
> model. And also this guarantee could be a little good for drivers,
> especially the case where cpu and hw queue mapping is 1:1.

I guess it is quite hard to respect this rule 100%, such as in case of
CPU hotplug.

Thanks,
Ming Lei