lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] blk-flush: fix flush policy calculation
On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 02:31:00PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 01:39:46PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> >> OK, sorry for top-posting here, but I chased the problem down further.
> >>
> >> Commit ae1b1539622fb46e51b4d13b3f9e5f4c713f86ae, block: reimplement
> >> FLUSH/FUA to support merge, introduced a regression when running any
> >> sort of fsyncing workload using dm-multipath and certain storage (in our
> >> case, an HP EVA). It turns out that dm-multipath always advertised
> >> flush+fua support, and passed commands on down the stack, where they
> >> used to get stripped off. The above commit, unfortunately, changed that
> >> behavior:
> >>
> >> static inline struct request *__elv_next_request(struct request_queue *q)
> >> {
> >> struct request *rq;
> >>
> >> while (1) {
> >> - while (!list_empty(&q->queue_head)) {
> >> + if (!list_empty(&q->queue_head)) {
> >> rq = list_entry_rq(q->queue_head.next);
> >> - if (!(rq->cmd_flags & (REQ_FLUSH | REQ_FUA)) ||
> >> - (rq->cmd_flags & REQ_FLUSH_SEQ))
> >> - return rq;
> >> - rq = blk_do_flush(q, rq);
> >> - if (rq)
> >> - return rq;
> >> + return rq;
> >> }
> >>
> >> Note that previously, a command would come in here, have
> >> REQ_FLUSH|REQ_FUA set, and then get handed off to blk_do_flush:
> >>
> >> struct request *blk_do_flush(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq)
> >> {
> >> unsigned int fflags = q->flush_flags; /* may change, cache it */
> >> bool has_flush = fflags & REQ_FLUSH, has_fua = fflags & REQ_FUA;
> >> bool do_preflush = has_flush && (rq->cmd_flags & REQ_FLUSH);
> >> bool do_postflush = has_flush && !has_fua && (rq->cmd_flags &
> >> REQ_FUA);
> >> unsigned skip = 0;
> >> ...
> >> if (blk_rq_sectors(rq) && !do_preflush && !do_postflush) {
> >> rq->cmd_flags &= ~REQ_FLUSH;
> >> if (!has_fua)
> >> rq->cmd_flags &= ~REQ_FUA;
> >> return rq;
> >> }
> >>
> >> So, the flush machinery was bypassed in such cases (q->flush_flags == 0
> >> && rq->cmd_flags & (REQ_FLUSH|REQ_FUA)).
> >>
> >> Now, however, we don't get into the flush machinery at all (which is why
> >> my initial patch didn't help this situation). Instead,
> >> __elv_next_request just hands a request with flush and fua bits set to
> >> the scsi_request_fn, even though the underlying request_queue does not
> >> support flush or fua.
> >>
> >> So, where do we fix this? We could just accept Mike's patch to not send
> >> such requests down from dm-mpath, but that seems short-sighted. We
> >> could reinstate some checks in __elv_next_request. Or, we could put the
> >> checks into blk_insert_cloned_request.
> >>
> >> Suggestions?
> >
> > IMHO, we should fix it at multiple places.
> >
> > - Your initial fix in blk_insert_flush makes sense. blk_insert_flush()
> > is equivalent of blk_do_flush() so resetting REQ_FLUSH and REQ_FUA there
> > makes sense to me.
>
> Right, I still stand by that fix. It was a thinko.
>
> > - Fixing blk_insert_cloned_request() also makes sense to me so that if
> > a request is REQ_FLUSH or REQ_FUA set, we try to add it to underlying
> > device using ELEVATOR_INSERT_FLUSH and not ELEVATOR_INSERT_BACK.
>
> Good point.
>
> > - Fixing dm-multipath makes sense too as what's the point in dispatching
> > unnecessary flush/fua requests to underlying devices if underlying
> > queue does not have FLUSH capability.
> >
> > So I would say, fix it at all the places. :-)
>
> You missed __elv_next_request. :)

Actually we will take care of resetting FLUSH/FUA flag when request is
being queued on request queue (blk_insert_flush()). So I think there is
no need to fix __elv_next_request(). That's why I had skipped it.

>
> > I have one question though. What happens if we have an empty request
> > with REQ_FLUSH set and request queue does not support flush. Where
> > will we complete the IO for that request? I see that __generic_make_request()
> > takes care of that but we might have to take care of if it insert_cloned
> > path too.
>
> In testing, I did this:
>
> @@ -1817,6 +1817,14 @@ int blk_insert_cloned_request(struct
> request_queue *q, struct request *rq)
> return -EIO;
> #endif
>
> + if ((rq->cmd_flags & (REQ_FLUSH|REQ_FUA)) && !q->flush_flags) {
> + rq->cmd_flags &= ~(REQ_FLUSH|REQ_FUA);
> + if (!blk_rq_bytes(rq)) {
> + blk_end_request(rq, 0, 0);
> + return 0;
> + }
> + }
> +

Will it make more sense to take care resetting flush/fua flags in
blk_insert_flush() and also the part which will end the request if
request is empty. And in cloned request we just take care of using
ELVATOR_FLUSH_INSERT.

The reason being that it will make __elv_insert() path safe for all
the cases and insert_cloned_request is just one of the consumers.

But this is just a minor point. At the end of the day, I think both
the solutions will work.

Thanks
Vivek


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-08-02 20:45    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans