on 1/28/2023 10:03 AM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>
>
> on 1/19/2023 9:45 AM, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>>
>>
>> on 1/19/2023 1:42 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 05:37:24PM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>>>> Commit 113285b473824 ("blk-mq: ensure that bd->last is always set
>>>> correctly") will set last if we failed to get driver tag for next
>>>> request to avoid flush miss as we break the list walk and will not
>>>> send the last request in the list which will be sent with last set
>>>> normally.
>>>> This code seems stale now becase the flush introduced is always
>>>> redundant as:
>>>> For case tag is really out, we will send a extra flush if we find
>>>> list is not empty after list walk.
>>>> For case some tag is freed before retry in blk_mq_prep_dispatch_rq for
>>>> next, then we can get a tag for next request in retry and flush notified
>>>> already is not necessary.
>>>
>>> I think Ming will know this code better than me, but aren't we
>>> losing the blk_mq_get_driver_tag call entirely here now. Where
>>> is getting the driver tag covered now?
>>>
>> We will get driver tag in blk_mq_prep_dispatch_rq at beginning of dispatch
>> loop, so it's fine to remove blk_mq_get_driver_tag here. Thanks.
>>
>
> Hi Ming and everyone familiar with code invovled, could you help with
> reviewing this patch and patch "[PATCH v4 04/14] blk-mq: Fix potential
> io hung for shared sbitmap per tagset" in the same patchset.
> Thanks.
>
Could anyone please help review the last two patches without reviewed-by.
Thanks.
--
Best wishes
Kemeng Shi
