Hi Ming
Thanks for your kindly response.
On 2/15/19 10:00 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 09:56:25AM +0800, Jianchao Wang wrote:
>> When requeue, if RQF_DONTPREP, rq has contained some driver
>> specific data, so insert it to hctx dispatch list to avoid any
>> merge. Take scsi as example, here is the trace event log (no
>> io scheduler, because RQF_STARTED would prevent merging),
>>
>> kworker/0:1H-339 [000] ...1 2037.209289: block_rq_insert: 8,0 R 4096 () 32768 + 8 [kworker/0:1H]
>> scsi_inert_test-1987 [000] .... 2037.220465: block_bio_queue: 8,0 R 32776 + 8 [scsi_inert_test]
>> scsi_inert_test-1987 [000] ...2 2037.220466: block_bio_backmerge: 8,0 R 32776 + 8 [scsi_inert_test]
>> kworker/0:1H-339 [000] .... 2047.220913: block_rq_issue: 8,0 R 8192 () 32768 + 16 [kworker/0:1H]
>> scsi_inert_test-1996 [000] ..s1 2047.221007: block_rq_complete: 8,0 R () 32768 + 8 [0]
>> scsi_inert_test-1996 [000] .Ns1 2047.221045: block_rq_requeue: 8,0 R () 32776 + 8 [0]
>> kworker/0:1H-339 [000] ...1 2047.221054: block_rq_insert: 8,0 R 4096 () 32776 + 8 [kworker/0:1H]
>> kworker/0:1H-339 [000] ...1 2047.221056: block_rq_issue: 8,0 R 4096 () 32776 + 8 [kworker/0:1H]
>> scsi_inert_test-1986 [000] ..s1 2047.221119: block_rq_complete: 8,0 R () 32776 + 8 [0]
>>
>> (32768 + 8) was requeued by scsi_queue_insert and had RQF_DONTPREP.
>
> scsi_mq_requeue_cmd() does uninit the request before requeuing, but
> __scsi_queue_insert doesn't do that.
Yes.
scsi layer use both of them.
>
>
>> Then it was merged with (32776 + 8) and issued. Due to RQF_DONTPREP,
>> the sdb only contained the part of (32768 + 8), then only that part
>> was completed. The lucky thing was that scsi_io_completion detected
>> it and requeued the remaining part. So we didn't get corrupted data.
>> However, the requeue of (32776 + 8) is not expected.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Jianchao Wang <jianchao.w.wang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> V2:
>> - refactor the code based on Jens' suggestion
>>
>> block/blk-mq.c | 12 ++++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
>> index 8f5b533..9437a5e 100644
>> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
>> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
>> @@ -737,12 +737,20 @@ static void blk_mq_requeue_work(struct work_struct *work)
>> spin_unlock_irq(&q->requeue_lock);
>>
>> list_for_each_entry_safe(rq, next, &rq_list, queuelist) {
>> - if (!(rq->rq_flags & RQF_SOFTBARRIER))
>> + if (!(rq->rq_flags & (RQF_SOFTBARRIER | RQF_DONTPREP)))
>> continue;
>>
>> rq->rq_flags &= ~RQF_SOFTBARRIER;
>> list_del_init(&rq->queuelist);
>> - blk_mq_sched_insert_request(rq, true, false, false);
>> + /*
>> + * If RQF_DONTPREP, rq has contained some driver specific
>> + * data, so insert it to hctx dispatch list to avoid any
>> + * merge.
>> + */
>> + if (rq->rq_flags & RQF_DONTPREP)
>> + blk_mq_request_bypass_insert(rq, false);
>> + else
>> + blk_mq_sched_insert_request(rq, true, false, false);
>> }
>
> Suppose it is one WRITE request to zone device, this way might break
> the order.
I'm not sure about this.
Since the request is dispatched, it should hold and zone write lock.
And also mq-deadline doesn't have a .requeue_request, zone write lock
wouldn't be released during requeue.
IMO, this requeue action is similar with what blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list does.
The latter one also issues the request to underlying driver and requeue rqs
on dispatch_list if get BLK_STS_SOURCE or BLK_STS_DEV_SOURCE.
And in addition, RQF_STARTED is set by io scheduler .dispatch_request and
it could be stop merging as RQF_NOMERGE_FLAGS contains it.
Thanks
Jianchao
