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 V11 0/4] blk-mq: refactor code of issue directly
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To:     "jianchao.wang" <jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>
Cc:     ming.lei@redhat.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1544152185-32667-1-git-send-email-jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>
 <b2bcbb76-af6f-7660-2bc3-9796338cccff@kernel.dk>
 <0adf3419-bcce-93d8-51fb-aee7cbb5ae17@oracle.com>
 <16205e68-aa5e-c59d-364e-4164a0e51dc7@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <f052c016-e521-9f12-f4e5-d65f3814643a@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 6 Dec 2018 20:34:35 -0700
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: <16205e68-aa5e-c59d-364e-4164a0e51dc7@kernel.dk>
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 12/6/18 8:32 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 12/6/18 8:26 PM, jianchao.wang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/7/18 11:16 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 12/6/18 8:09 PM, Jianchao Wang wrote:
>>>> Hi Jens
>>>>
>>>> Please consider this patchset for 4.21.
>>>>
>>>> It refactors the code of issue request directly to unify the interface
>>>> and make the code clearer and more readable.
>>>>
>>>> This patch set is rebased on the recent for-4.21/block and add the 1st
>>>> patch which inserts the non-read-write request to hctx dispatch
>>>> list to avoid to involve merge and io scheduler when bypass_insert
>>>> is true, otherwise, inserting is ignored, BLK_STS_RESOURCE is returned
>>>> and the caller will fail forever.
>>>>
>>>> The 2nd patch refactors the code of issue request directly to unify the
>>>> helper interface which could handle all the cases.
>>>>
>>>> The 3rd patch make blk_mq_sched_insert_requests issue requests directly
>>>> with 'bypass' false, then it needn't to handle the non-issued requests
>>>> any more.
>>>>
>>>> The 4th patch replace and kill the blk_mq_request_issue_directly.
>>>
>>> Sorry to keep iterating on this, but let's default to inserting to
>>> the dispatch list if we ever see busy from a direct dispatch. I'm fine
>>> with doing that for 4.21, as suggested by Ming, I just didn't want to
>>> fiddle with it for 4.20. This will prevent any merging on the request
>>> going forward, which I think is a much safer default.
>>>
>>> You do this already for some cases. Let's do it unconditionally for
>>> a request that was ever subjected to ->queue_rq() and we didn't either
>>> error or finish after the fact.
>>>
>> I have done it in this version if I get your point correctly.
>> Please refer to the following fragment in the 2nd patch.
>>
>> +	/*
>> +	 * If the request is issued unsuccessfully with
>> +	 * BLK_STS_DEV_RESOURCE or BLK_STS_RESOURCE, insert
>> +	 * the request to hctx dispatch list due to attached
>> +	 * lldd resource.
>> +	 */
>> +	force = true;
>> +	ret = __blk_mq_issue_directly(hctx, rq, cookie, last);
>> +out_unlock:
>> +	hctx_unlock(hctx, srcu_idx);
>> +out:
>> +	switch (ret) {
>> +	case BLK_STS_OK:
>> +		break;
>> +	case BLK_STS_DEV_RESOURCE:
>> +	case BLK_STS_RESOURCE:
>> +		if (force) {
>> +			blk_mq_request_bypass_insert(rq, run_queue);
>> +			ret = bypass ? BLK_STS_OK : ret;
>> +		} else if (!bypass) {
>> +			blk_mq_sched_insert_request(rq, false,
>> +						    run_queue, false);
>> +		}
>> +		break;
>> +	default:
> 
> You are right, I missed that you set force = true before doing the
> issue. So this looks good to me!

I applied your series. With this, we should be good to remove the
REQ_NOMERGE logic that was added for the corruption case, and the
blk_rq_can_direct_dispatch() as well?

-- 
Jens Axboe