On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 08:18:04PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 6/28/18 7:59 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 09:46:50AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> Some devices have different queue limits depending on the type of IO. A
> >> classic case is SATA NCQ, where some commands can queue, but others
> >> cannot. If we have NCQ commands inflight and encounter a non-queueable
> >> command, the driver returns busy. Currently we attempt to dispatch more
> >> from the scheduler, if we were able to queue some commands. But for the
> >> case where we ended up stopping due to BUSY, we should not attempt to
> >> retrieve more from the scheduler. If we do, we can get into a situation
> >> where we attempt to queue a non-queueable command, get BUSY, then
> >> successfully retrieve more commands from that scheduler and queue those.
> >> This can repeat forever, starving the non-queuable command indefinitely.
> >>
> >> Fix this by NOT attempting to pull more commands from the scheduler, if
> >> we get a BUSY return. This should also be more optimal in terms of
> >> letting requests stay in the scheduler for as long as possible, if we
> >> get a BUSY due to the regular out-of-tags condition.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> >> index b6888ff556cf..d394cdd8d8c6 100644
> >> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> >> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> >> @@ -1075,6 +1075,9 @@ static bool blk_mq_mark_tag_wait(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx **hctx,
> >>
> >> #define BLK_MQ_RESOURCE_DELAY 3 /* ms units */
> >>
> >> +/*
> >> + * Returns true if we did some work AND can potentially do more.
> >> + */
> >> bool blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(struct request_queue *q, struct list_head *list,
> >> bool got_budget)
> >> {
> >> @@ -1205,8 +1208,17 @@ bool blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(struct request_queue *q, struct list_head *list,
> >> blk_mq_run_hw_queue(hctx, true);
> >> else if (needs_restart && (ret == BLK_STS_RESOURCE))
> >> blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue(hctx, BLK_MQ_RESOURCE_DELAY);
> >> +
> >> + return false;
> >> }
> >>
> >> + /*
> >> + * If the host/device is unable to accept more work, inform the
> >> + * caller of that.
> >> + */
> >> + if (ret == BLK_STS_RESOURCE || ret == BLK_STS_DEV_RESOURCE)
> >> + return false;
> >
> > The above change may not be needed since one invariant is that
> > !list_empty(list) becomes true if either BLK_STS_RESOURCE or BLK_STS_DEV_RESOURCE
> > is returned from .queue_rq().
>
> Agree, that's one case, but it's more bullet proof this way. And explicit,
> I'd rather not break this odd case again.
OK, just two-line dead code, not a big deal.
I guess this patch may improve sequential IO performance a bit on SCSI HDD.,
so:
Reviewed-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks,
Ming
