Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B02C4C38142 for ; Sat, 28 Jan 2023 02:03:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232207AbjA1CDx (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2023 21:03:53 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:33354 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229498AbjA1CDu (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Jan 2023 21:03:50 -0500 Received: from dggsgout11.his.huawei.com (dggsgout11.his.huawei.com [45.249.212.51]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 332251B543; Fri, 27 Jan 2023 18:03:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail02.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.67.169]) by dggsgout11.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4P3d5p31Tgz4f3wRB; Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:03:42 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.178.129] (unknown [10.174.178.129]) by APP4 (Coremail) with SMTP id gCh0CgBnF6uAgtRjI5wnCg--.29566S2; Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:03:44 +0800 (CST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 12/14] blk-mq: remove set of bd->last when get driver tag for next request fails From: Kemeng Shi To: ming.lei@redhat.com Cc: Christoph Hellwig , axboe@kernel.dk, dwagner@suse.de, hare@suse.de, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, john.garry@huawei.com, jack@suse.cz References: <20230118093726.3939160-1-shikemeng@huaweicloud.com> <20230118093726.3939160-12-shikemeng@huaweicloud.com> <20230118174208.GH12399@lst.de> <1f116b9b-8194-54c8-eedb-7f2c9cd493c6@huaweicloud.com> Message-ID: <0526b518-0894-10f6-e428-c03644d39c02@huaweicloud.com> Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2023 10:03:43 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1f116b9b-8194-54c8-eedb-7f2c9cd493c6@huaweicloud.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gbk Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CM-TRANSID: gCh0CgBnF6uAgtRjI5wnCg--.29566S2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoW7tF47Xr15GFW3ZF17Kw18uFg_yoW8GrWDpF W8Jayjkrs8tFsFvrn2ywsFgFyvqw43XrWaqry5uryrXws8ur13KrykKr42v3W7Cr4xGan0 9w4jgas0q3W8Za7anT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUk0b4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r4j6ryUM7CY07I20VC2zVCF04k2 6cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rwA2F7IY1VAKz4 vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_tr0E3s1l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7Cj xVAFwI0_Gr1j6F4UJwA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2jsIE14v26rxl6s0DM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVCY1x 0267AKxVW0oVCq3wAS0I0E0xvYzxvE52x082IY62kv0487Mc02F40EFcxC0VAKzVAqx4xG 6I80ewAv7VC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUGVWUXwAv7VC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lOx8S6xCaFV Cjc4AY6r1j6r4UM4x0Y48IcVAKI48JMxk0xIA0c2IEe2xFo4CEbIxvr21l42xK82IYc2Ij 64vIr41l4I8I3I0E4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lx2IqxVAqx4xG67AKxVWUJVWUGwC20s026x 8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1VAY17CE14v26r1q6r43MIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF0xvE 2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I0E14v26r4j6F4UMIIF0xvE42 xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVWrJr0_WFyUJwCI42IY6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6I8E87Iv 6xkF7I0E14v26r4j6r4UJbIYCTnIWIevJa73UjIFyTuYvjxUOyCJDUUUU X-CM-SenderInfo: 5vklyvpphqwq5kxd4v5lfo033gof0z/ X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org on 1/19/2023 9:45 AM, Kemeng Shi wrote: > > > on 1/19/2023 1:42 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 05:37:24PM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote: >>> Commit 113285b473824 ("blk-mq: ensure that bd->last is always set >>> correctly") will set last if we failed to get driver tag for next >>> request to avoid flush miss as we break the list walk and will not >>> send the last request in the list which will be sent with last set >>> normally. >>> This code seems stale now becase the flush introduced is always >>> redundant as: >>> For case tag is really out, we will send a extra flush if we find >>> list is not empty after list walk. >>> For case some tag is freed before retry in blk_mq_prep_dispatch_rq for >>> next, then we can get a tag for next request in retry and flush notified >>> already is not necessary. >> >> I think Ming will know this code better than me, but aren't we >> losing the blk_mq_get_driver_tag call entirely here now. Where >> is getting the driver tag covered now? >> > We will get driver tag in blk_mq_prep_dispatch_rq at beginning of dispatch > loop, so it's fine to remove blk_mq_get_driver_tag here. Thanks. > Hi Ming and everyone familiar with code invovled, could you help with reviewing this patch and patch "[PATCH v4 04/14] blk-mq: Fix potential io hung for shared sbitmap per tagset" in the same patchset. Thanks. -- Best wishes Kemeng Shi