On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 11:15 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Currently, blk-mq protects only the issue path with RCU. This patch
> puts the completion path under the same RCU protection. This will be
> used to synchronize issue/completion against timeout by later patches,
> which will also add the comments.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> block/blk-mq.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> index ddc9261..6741c3e 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> @@ -584,11 +584,16 @@ static void hctx_lock(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, int *srcu_idx)
> void blk_mq_complete_request(struct request *rq)
> {
> struct request_queue *q = rq->q;
> + struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx = blk_mq_map_queue(q, rq->mq_ctx->cpu);
> + int srcu_idx;
>
> if (unlikely(blk_should_fake_timeout(q)))
> return;
> +
> + hctx_lock(hctx, &srcu_idx);
> if (!blk_mark_rq_complete(rq))
> __blk_mq_complete_request(rq);
> + hctx_unlock(hctx, srcu_idx);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_mq_complete_request);
Hello Tejun,
I'm concerned about the additional CPU cycles needed for the new blk_mq_map_queue()
call, although I know this call is cheap. Would the timeout code really get that
much more complicated if the hctx_lock() and hctx_unlock() calls would be changed
into rcu_read_lock() and rcu_read_unlock() calls? Would it be sufficient if
"if (has_rcu) synchronize_rcu();" would be changed into "synchronize_rcu();" in
blk_mq_timeout_work()?
Thanks,
Bart.
