From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: chengming.zhou@linux.dev, hch@lst.de, chuck.lever@oracle.com
Cc: bvanassche@acm.org, cel@kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zhouchengming@bytedance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: release scheduler resource when request complete
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2023 07:54:23 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4fcddc26-4f51-4228-9a35-58dc1b5a16bc@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230813133643.3006943-1-chengming.zhou@linux.dev>
On 8/13/23 7:36 AM, chengming.zhou@linux.dev wrote:
> From: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
>
> Chuck reported [1] a IO hang problem on NFS exports that reside on SATA
> devices and bisected to commit 615939a2ae73 ("blk-mq: defer to the normal
> submission path for post-flush requests").
>
> We analysed the IO hang problem, found there are two postflush requests
> are waiting for each other.
>
> The first postflush request completed the REQ_FSEQ_DATA sequence, so go to
> the REQ_FSEQ_POSTFLUSH sequence and added in the flush pending list, but
> failed to blk_kick_flush() because of the second postflush request which
> is inflight waiting in scheduler queue.
>
> The second postflush waiting in scheduler queue can't be dispatched because
> the first postflush hasn't released scheduler resource even though it has
> completed by itself.
>
> Fix it by releasing scheduler resource when the first postflush request
> completed, so the second postflush can be dispatched and completed, then
> make blk_kick_flush() succeed.
Change looks good to me. But since we're in here:
> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> index f14b8669ac69..5b14f18f9670 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> @@ -682,6 +682,15 @@ struct request *blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx(struct request_queue *q,
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx);
>
> +static void blk_mq_finish_request(struct request *rq)
> +{
> + struct request_queue *q = rq->q;
> +
> + if ((rq->rq_flags & RQF_USE_SCHED) &&
> + q->elevator->type->ops.finish_request)
> + q->elevator->type->ops.finish_request(rq);
> +}
Any IO scheduler should set ->finish_request(), so this should just be:
static void blk_mq_finish_request(struct request *rq)
{
struct request_queue *q = rq->q;
if (rq->rq_flags & RQF_USE_SCHED)
q->elevator->type->ops.finish_request(rq);
}
and would probably be a good idea to solidify that with a:
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!e->ops.finish_request))
return -EINVAL;
at the top of elv_register() like we have for insert/dispatch as well.
All 3 IO schedulers do set ->finish_request().
--
Jens Axboe
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-13 13:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-13 13:36 chengming.zhou
2023-08-13 13:54 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
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=4fcddc26-4f51-4228-9a35-58dc1b5a16bc@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=cel@kernel.org \
--cc=chengming.zhou@linux.dev \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=zhouchengming@bytedance.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®