lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 7/8] mq-deadline: add blk-mq adaptation of the deadline IO scheduler
From
Date
On 02/16/2017 03:46 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
>
>> Il giorno 17 dic 2016, alle ore 01:12, Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> ha scritto:
>>
>> This is basically identical to deadline-iosched, except it registers
>> as a MQ capable scheduler. This is still a single queue design.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
> ...
>> +
>> +static void dd_merged_requests(struct request_queue *q, struct request *req,
>> + struct request *next)
>> +{
>> + /*
>> + * if next expires before rq, assign its expire time to rq
>> + * and move into next position (next will be deleted) in fifo
>> + */
>> + if (!list_empty(&req->queuelist) && !list_empty(&next->queuelist)) {
>> + if (time_before((unsigned long)next->fifo_time,
>> + (unsigned long)req->fifo_time)) {
>> + list_move(&req->queuelist, &next->queuelist);
>> + req->fifo_time = next->fifo_time;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>
> Jens,
> while trying to imagine the possible causes of Bart's hang with
> bfq-mq, I've bumped into the following doubt: in the above function
> (in my case, in bfq-mq-'s equivalent of the above function), are
> we sure that neither req or next could EVER be in dd->dispatch instead
> of dd->fifo_list? I've tried to verify it, but, although I think it has never
> happened in my tests, I was not able to make sure that no unlucky
> combination may ever happen (considering also the use of
> blk_rq_is_passthrough too, to decide where to put a new request).
>
> I'm making a blunder, right?

If a request goes into dd->dispatch, it's going to be found for merging.
Hence we can never call the above on the request.

--
Jens Axboe

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-02-16 16:36    [W:0.296 / U:0.792 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site