On 8/17/23 9:29 AM, Chengming Zhou wrote:
> 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?
I don't think this is the right solution, it makes all kinds of
assumptions on what that flag is and when it's safe to clear it. It's a
very fragile fix, I think we need to do better than that.
--
Jens Axboe
