On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 09:15:37AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 2/28/18 9:14 AM, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 08:28:25AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > >> On 2/28/18 1:51 AM, Omar Sandoval wrote: > >>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 03:34:53PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > >>>> Similarly to the support we have for testing/faking timeouts for > >>>> null_blk, this adds support for triggering a requeue condition. > >>>> Considering the issues around restart we've been seeing, this should be > >>>> a useful addition to the testing arsenal to ensure that we are handling > >>>> requeue conditions correctly. > >>>> > >>>> This works for queue mode 1 (legacy request_fn based path) and 2 (blk-mq > >>>> path), as there's no good way to do requeue with a bio based driver. > >>>> This is similar to the timeout path. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> > >>>> > >>>> --- > >>>> > >>>> null_blk.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ > >>>> 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/block/null_blk.c b/drivers/block/null_blk.c > >>>> index 287a09611c0f..363536572e19 100644 > >>>> --- a/drivers/block/null_blk.c > >>>> +++ b/drivers/block/null_blk.c > >>> > >>> [snip] > >>> > >>>> @@ -1422,10 +1440,12 @@ static blk_status_t null_queue_rq(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, > >>>> > >>>> blk_mq_start_request(bd->rq); > >>>> > >>>> - if (!should_timeout_request(bd->rq)) > >>>> - return null_handle_cmd(cmd); > >>>> + if (should_requeue_request(bd->rq)) > >>>> + return BLK_STS_RESOURCE; > >>> > >>> Hm, this goes through the less interesting requeue path, add to the > >>> dispatch list and __blk_mq_requeue_request(). blk_mq_requeue_request() > >>> is the one that I wanted to test since that's the one that needs to call > >>> the scheduler hook. > >> > >> Until recently, it would have :-) > >> > >> Both of them are interesting to test, though. Most of the core stall > >> cases would have been triggered by going through the STS_RESOURCE case. > >> How about we just make it exercise both? The below patch alternates > >> between them when we have chosen to requeue. > > > > Works for me. One idle thought, if we set this up to always requeue, > > then it won't make any progress. Maybe we should limit the number of > > times each request can be requeued so people (me) don't lock up their > > test systems? Either way, > > Dunno, that gets into the "doctor it hurts when I shoot myself in the > foot" territory. Same can be said for the timeout setting. I think we > should just ignore that. Ack, fine with me.
