lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jan]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 08/10] blk-mq-sched: add framework for MQ capable IO schedulers
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:15:17PM +0100, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 01/11/2017 10:40 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > This adds a set of hooks that intercepts the blk-mq path of
> > allocating/inserting/issuing/completing requests, allowing
> > us to develop a scheduler within that framework.
> >
> > We reuse the existing elevator scheduler API on the registration
> > side, but augment that with the scheduler flagging support for
> > the blk-mq interfce, and with a separate set of ops hooks for MQ
> > devices.
> >
> > We split driver and scheduler tags, so we can run the scheduling
> > independent of device queue depth.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
> [ .. ]
> > @@ -823,6 +847,35 @@ static inline unsigned int queued_to_index(unsigned int queued)
> > return min(BLK_MQ_MAX_DISPATCH_ORDER - 1, ilog2(queued) + 1);
> > }
> >
> > +static bool blk_mq_get_driver_tag(struct request *rq,
> > + struct blk_mq_hw_ctx **hctx, bool wait)
> > +{
> > + struct blk_mq_alloc_data data = {
> > + .q = rq->q,
> > + .ctx = rq->mq_ctx,
> > + .hctx = blk_mq_map_queue(rq->q, rq->mq_ctx->cpu),
> > + .flags = wait ? 0 : BLK_MQ_REQ_NOWAIT,
> > + };
> > +
> > + if (blk_mq_hctx_stopped(data.hctx))
> > + return false;
> > +
> > + if (rq->tag != -1) {
> > +done:
> > + if (hctx)
> > + *hctx = data.hctx;
> > + return true;
> > + }
> > +
> > + rq->tag = blk_mq_get_tag(&data);
> > + if (rq->tag >= 0) {
> > + data.hctx->tags->rqs[rq->tag] = rq;
> > + goto done;
> > + }
> > +
> > + return false;
> > +}
> > +
> What happens with the existing request at 'rqs[rq->tag]' ?
> Surely there is one already, right?
> Things like '->init_request' assume a fully populated array, so moving
> one entry to another location is ... interesting.
>
> I would have thought we need to do a request cloning here,
> otherwise this would introduce a memory leak, right?
> (Not to mention a potential double completion, as the request is now at
> two positions in the array)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hannes

The entries in tags->rqs aren't slab objects, they're pointers into
pages allocated separately and tracked on tags->page_list. See
blk_mq_alloc_rqs(). In blk_mq_free_rqs(), we free all of the pages on
tags->page_list, so there shouldn't be a memory leak.

As for hctx->tags->rqs, entries are only overwritten when a scheduler is
enabled. In that case, the rqs array is storing pointers to requests
actually from hctx->sched_tags, so overwriting/leaking isn't an issue.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-01-13 17:43    [W:0.061 / U:1.644 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site