[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] block: export __blk_complete_request
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 11:26 AM,
<> wrote:
> Hi Ming
> On 06/15/2018 11:20 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 11:04 AM,
>> <> wrote:
>>> Hi Ming
>>> Thanks for your kindly response.
>>> On 06/15/2018 10:56 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>>>> IMO, ref-counter is just to fix the blk-mq req life recycle issue.
>>>>>> It cannot replace the blk_mark_rq_complete which could avoid the race between
>>>>>> timeout and io completion path.
>>>>> The .timeout return BLK_EH_DONE doesn't always mean the request has been completed.
>>>>> Such as scsi-mid layer, its .timeout callback return BLK_EH_DONE but the timed out
>>>>> request is still in abort or eh process. What if a completion irq come during that ?
>>>> For blk-mq, it is avoided by the atomic state change in
>>>> __blk_mq_complete_request(),
>>>> that is why I mentioned the question in my last reply.
>>> but blk_mq_check_expired doesn't do that.
>>> do I miss anything ?
>> Right, that is the difference between blk-mq and legacy now,
> Sorry, I cannot follow your point.
> blk_mq_check_expired doesn't do a atmoc state change from IN-FLIGHT to COMPLETE.
> __blk_mq_complete_request could still proceed to complete a timed out request
> which is in scsi abort or eh process. Is it really OK ?

That is the idea of Christoph's patchset of 'complete requests from ->timeout',
then drivers need to cover race between timeout and normal completeion.

But at least the request won't be completed twice because of the atomic
state change in __blk_mq_complete_request().

So what is your real concern about blk-mq's timeout?


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-15 06:04    [W:0.067 / U:27.356 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site