On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 03:18:45PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Tue, 2017-09-19 at 11:07 -0400, Keith Busch wrote: > > The problem is when blk-mq's timeout handler prevents the request from > > completing, and doesn't leave any indication the driver requested to > > complete it. Who is responsible for completing that request now? > > Hello Keith, > > My understanding is that block drivers are responsible for completing timed > out requests by using one of the following approaches: > * By returning BLK_EH_HANDLED or BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER from inside the timeout > handler. No problem with BLK_EH_HANDLED when timeout handler completes the request. That usage at least makes sense. In NVMe, we use BLK_EH_RESET_TIMER if the driver does an asynchronous action to reclaim the request. If the request is returned very soon though (before blk-mq clears ATOM_COMPLETE), blk_mq_complete_request will still to do nothing. > * By returning BLK_EH_NOT_HANDLED and by calling blk_mq_end_request() or > __blk_mq_end_request() for the request that timed out. You want to bypass __blk_mq_complete_request? Doesn't that actually do important things with queue and scheduler stats? If it's not important, then this sounds like the piece I'm looking for, but this also puts a burden on the driver to track the state of their requests that blk-mq could do for all drivers.
