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 V6 3/5] blk-mq: ensure hctx to be ran on mapped cpu when
 issue directly
To:     Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.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>
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>
 <CACVXFVNZ1p4wV6S_FRyKssbUT9CV-aXZ=iRGQ-tY05v_7vxPnw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   "jianchao.wang" <jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <6fa5f24c-727a-5d20-7677-da4ac3e173f9@oracle.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Nov 2018 11:38:16 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACVXFVNZ1p4wV6S_FRyKssbUT9CV-aXZ=iRGQ-tY05v_7vxPnw@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

On 11/14/18 11:02 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> 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.
> 
Yes, it is indeed the case.

Looks like this patch is contentious.
I will drop this one and post later as a standalone one if necessary.

Thanks
Jianchao