On Mon, 2018-01-29 at 17:14 -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > On Mon, Jan 29 2018 at 4:51pm -0500, > Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2018-01-29 at 16:44 -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > > But regardless of which wins the race, the queue will have been run. > > > Which is all we care about right? > > > > Running the queue is not sufficient. With this patch applied it can happen > > that the block driver returns BLK_STS_DEV_RESOURCE, that the two or more > > concurrent queue runs finish before sufficient device resources are available > > to execute the request and that blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue() does not get > > called at all. If no other activity triggers a queue run, e.g. request > > completion, this will result in a queue stall. > > If BLK_STS_DEV_RESOURCE is returned then the driver doesn't need to rely > on a future queue run. IIUC, that is the entire premise of > BLK_STS_DEV_RESOURCE. If the driver had doubt about whether the > resource were going to be available in the future it should return > BLK_STS_RESOURCE. > > That may seem like putting a lot on a driver developer (to decide > between the 2) but I'll again defer to Jens here. This was the approach > he was advocating be pursued. Hello Mike, There was a typo in my reply: I should have referred to BLK_STS_RESOURCE instead of BLK_STS_DEV_RESOURCE. The convention for BLK_STS_DEV_RESOURCE is namely that if .queue_rq() returns that status code that the block driver guarantees that the queue will be rerun. Bart. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
