Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <cf7f8f88-7d3e-8818-8584-e2276e7a1f30@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 25 Oct 2022 10:08:10 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.6.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: Properly init bios from
 blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx()
To:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
CC:     <axboe@kernel.dk>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>, <hch@lst.de>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
References: <1666454846-11749-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com>
 <Y1U9zNZtZjRHQBww@T590> <99c6ca81-746d-85f4-04d3-49d7a3de611b@huawei.com>
 <Y1aS3vIbuQTNGWJL@T590> <360c78dc-65ce-362f-389d-075f2259ce5b@huawei.com>
 <Y1cvJ4/uwUScAQq4@T590> <3513b14c-14e0-b865-628e-a83521090de9@huawei.com>
 <CAFj5m9JnSBBVGrp5CqeH99-+VOGRuroUAi3c-3=6XKa891Sfmw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFj5m9JnSBBVGrp5CqeH99-+VOGRuroUAi3c-3=6XKa891Sfmw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 25/10/2022 10:00, Ming Lei wrote:
>> My use case is in SCSI EH domain. For my HBA controller of interest, to
>> abort an erroneous IO we must send a controller proprietary abort
>> command on same HW queue as original command. So we would need to
>> allocate this abort request for a specific HW queue.
> IMO, it is one bad hw/sw interface.
> 
> First such request has to be reserved, since all inflight IOs can be in error.

Right

> 
> Second error handling needs to provide forward-progress, and it is supposed
> to not require external dependency, otherwise easy to cause deadlock, but
> here request from specific HW queue just depends on this queue's cpumask.
> 
> Also if it has to be reserved, it can be done as one device/driver private
> command, so why bother blk-mq for this special use case?

I have a series for reserved request support, which I will send later. 
Please have a look. And as I mentioned, I would prob not end up using 
blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx() anyway.

> 
>> I mentioned before that if no hctx->cpumask is online then we don't need
>> to allocate a request. That is because if no hctx->cpumask is online,
>> this means that original erroneous IO must be completed due to nature of
>> how blk-mq cpu hotplug handler works, i.e. drained, and then we don't
>> actually need to abort it any longer, so ok to not get a request.
> No, it is really not OK, if all cpus in hctx->cpumask are offline, you
> can't allocate
> request on the specified hw queue, then the erroneous IO can't be handled,
> then cpu hotplug handler may hang for ever.

If the erroneous IO is still in-flight from blk-mq perspective, then how 
can hctx->cpumask still be offline? I thought that we guarantee that 
hctx->cpumask cannot go offline until drained.

Thanks,
John