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] blk-mq: insert rq with DONTPREP to hctx dispatch list
 when requeue
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc:     linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1549863665-1691-1-git-send-email-jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>
 <937e9207-dcf7-dab5-1917-8a10303edc67@kernel.dk>
 <82deee13-a4ff-9bf5-5e01-0e4df01b7ff7@kernel.dk>
 <e68f8017-2f56-6305-1c08-2368435b274b@kernel.dk>
From:   "jianchao.wang" <jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>
Message-ID: <0ae89a37-7b6e-0cc4-f474-2e5c45cc1aec@oracle.com>
Date:   Tue, 12 Feb 2019 09:56:56 +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: <e68f8017-2f56-6305-1c08-2368435b274b@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

Hi Jens

Thanks for your kindly response.

On 2/12/19 7:20 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 2/11/19 4:15 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 2/11/19 8:59 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 2/10/19 10:41 PM, Jianchao Wang wrote:
>>>> When requeue, if RQF_DONTPREP, rq has contained some driver
>>>> specific data, so insert it to hctx dispatch list to avoid any
>>>> merge. Take scsi as example, here is the trace event log (no
>>>> io scheduler, because RQF_STARTED would prevent merging),
>>>>
>>>>    kworker/0:1H-339   [000] ...1  2037.209289: block_rq_insert: 8,0 R 4096 () 32768 + 8 [kworker/0:1H]
>>>> scsi_inert_test-1987  [000] ....  2037.220465: block_bio_queue: 8,0 R 32776 + 8 [scsi_inert_test]
>>>> scsi_inert_test-1987  [000] ...2  2037.220466: block_bio_backmerge: 8,0 R 32776 + 8 [scsi_inert_test]
>>>>    kworker/0:1H-339   [000] ....  2047.220913: block_rq_issue: 8,0 R 8192 () 32768 + 16 [kworker/0:1H]
>>>> scsi_inert_test-1996  [000] ..s1  2047.221007: block_rq_complete: 8,0 R () 32768 + 8 [0]
>>>> scsi_inert_test-1996  [000] .Ns1  2047.221045: block_rq_requeue: 8,0 R () 32776 + 8 [0]
>>>>    kworker/0:1H-339   [000] ...1  2047.221054: block_rq_insert: 8,0 R 4096 () 32776 + 8 [kworker/0:1H]
>>>>    kworker/0:1H-339   [000] ...1  2047.221056: block_rq_issue: 8,0 R 4096 () 32776 + 8 [kworker/0:1H]
>>>> scsi_inert_test-1986  [000] ..s1  2047.221119: block_rq_complete: 8,0 R () 32776 + 8 [0]
>>>>
>>>> (32768 + 8) was requeued by scsi_queue_insert and had RQF_DONTPREP.
>>>> Then it was merged with (32776 + 8) and issued. Due to RQF_DONTPREP,
>>>> the sdb only contained the part of (32768 + 8), then only that part
>>>> was completed. The lucky thing was that scsi_io_completion detected
>>>> it and requeued the remaining part. So we didn't get corrupted data.
>>>> However, the requeue of (32776 + 8) is not expected.
>>>
>>> Good catch, but how about something like this? Makes it more integrated,
>>> I think that's cleaner.
>>
>> This is probably better (and safer):
> 
> Here's the one I wanted to send, not a half done one. Maybe I'll be
> luckier this time around?
> 
> 
> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> index 8f5b533764ca..35e6aba52808 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> @@ -737,12 +737,21 @@ static void blk_mq_requeue_work(struct work_struct *work)
>  	spin_unlock_irq(&q->requeue_lock);
>  
>  	list_for_each_entry_safe(rq, next, &rq_list, queuelist) {
> -		if (!(rq->rq_flags & RQF_SOFTBARRIER))
> +		if (!(rq->rq_flags & (RQF_SOFTBARRIER | RQF_DONTPREP)))
>  			continue;
>  
>  		rq->rq_flags &= ~RQF_SOFTBARRIER;
>  		list_del_init(&rq->queuelist);
> -		blk_mq_sched_insert_request(rq, true, false, false);
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * If RQF_DONTPREP is set, rq may contain some driver
> +		 * specific data. Insert it to hctx dispatch list to avoid
> +		 * any merge.
> +		 */
> +		if (rq->rq_flags & RQF_DONTPREP)
> +			blk_mq_request_bypass_insert(rq, false);
> +		else
> +			blk_mq_sched_insert_request(rq, true, false, false);
>  	}
>  
>  	while (!list_empty(&rq_list)) {
> 

The test is OK.
And I will send out the V2 based on this.

Thanks
Jianchao