From: Chengming Zhou <chengming.zhou@linux.dev>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>, axboe@kernel.dk, hch@lst.de
Cc: oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev, lkp@intel.com,
Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, cel@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>,
chengming.zhou@linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] blk-mq: release scheduler resource when request complete
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2023 23:29:37 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <317715dc-f6e4-1847-5b78-b2d8184b446a@linux.dev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <af61c72c-b3ec-ce7a-4f41-bce9a9844baf@acm.org>
On 2023/8/17 22:50, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 8/17/23 07:41, kernel test robot wrote:
>> [ 222.622837][ T2216] statistics for priority 1: i 276 m 0 d 276 c 278
>> [ 222.629307][ T2216] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2216 at block/mq-deadline.c:680 dd_exit_sched (block/mq-deadline.c:680 (discriminator 3))
>
> The above information shows that dd_inserted_request() has been called
> 276 times and also that dd_finish_request() has been called 278 times.
Thanks much for your help.
This patch indeed introduced a regression, postflush requests will be completed
twice, so here dd_finish_request() is more than dd_inserted_request().
diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
index a8c63bef8ff1..7cd47ffc04ce 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq.c
@@ -686,8 +686,10 @@ static void blk_mq_finish_request(struct request *rq)
{
struct request_queue *q = rq->q;
- if (rq->rq_flags & RQF_USE_SCHED)
+ if (rq->rq_flags & RQF_USE_SCHED) {
q->elevator->type->ops.finish_request(rq);
+ rq->rq_flags &= ~RQF_USE_SCHED;
+ }
}
Clear RQF_USE_SCHED flag here should fix this problem, which should be ok
since finish_request() is the last callback, this flag isn't needed anymore.
Jens, should I send this diff as another patch or resend updated v3?
Thanks.
> Calling dd_finish_request() more than once per request breaks the code
> for priority handling since that code checks how many requests are
> pending per priority level by subtracting the number of completion calls
> from the number of insertion calls (see also dd_queued()). I think the
> above output indicates that this patch introduced a regression.
>
> Bart.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-17 15:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-13 15:23 chengming.zhou
2023-08-13 15:34 ` Jens Axboe
2023-08-13 15:45 ` Chengming Zhou
2023-08-14 21:42 ` Jens Axboe
2023-08-17 14:41 ` kernel test robot
2023-08-17 14:50 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-08-17 15:29 ` Chengming Zhou [this message]
2023-08-17 17:17 ` Chengming Zhou
2023-08-17 17:26 ` Jens Axboe
2023-08-17 17:20 ` Jens Axboe
2023-08-17 17:24 ` Jens Axboe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=317715dc-f6e4-1847-5b78-b2d8184b446a@linux.dev \
--to=chengming.zhou@linux.dev \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=cel@kernel.org \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkp@intel.com \
--cc=oe-lkp@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=oliver.sang@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®