On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 03:34:16PM +0530, Kashyap Desai wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Can we get supporting API from block layer (through SML) ?
> > > > > something similar to "atomic_read(&hctx->nr_active)" which can be
> > > > > derived from
> > > > > sdev->request_queue->hctx ?
> > > > > At least for those driver which is nr_hw_queue = 1, it will be
> > > > > useful and we can avoid sdev->device_busy dependency.
> > > >
> > > > If you mean to add new atomic counter, we just move the .device_busy
> > > into
> > > > blk-mq, that can become new bottleneck.
> > >
> > > How about below ? We define and use below API instead of
> > > "atomic_read(&scp->device->device_busy) >" and it is giving expected
> > > value. I have not captured performance impact on max IOPs profile.
> > >
> > > Inline unsigned long sdev_nr_inflight_request(struct request_queue *q)
> > > {
> > > struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx;
> > > unsigned long nr_requests = 0;
> > > int i;
> > >
> > > queue_for_each_hw_ctx(q, hctx, i)
> > > nr_requests += atomic_read(&hctx->nr_active);
> > >
> > > return nr_requests;
> > > }
> >
> > There is still difference between above and .device_busy in case of
> none,
> > because .nr_active is accounted actually when allocating the request
> instead
> > of getting driver tag(or before calling .queue_rq).
>
>
> This will be fine as long as we get outstanding from allocation time
> itself.
Fine, but keep that in mind.
> >
> > Also the above only works in case that there are more than one active
> LUNs.
>
> I am not able to understand this part. We have tested on setup which has
> only one active LUN and it works. Can you help me to understand this part
> ?
Please see blk_mq_rq_ctx_init():
if (data->hctx->flags & BLK_MQ_F_TAG_SHARED) {
rq_flags = RQF_MQ_INFLIGHT;
atomic_inc(&data->hctx->nr_active);
}
blk_mq_init_allocated_queue
blk_mq_add_queue_tag_set
blk_mq_update_tag_set_depth(ture)
queue_set_hctx_shared(q, shared)
thanks,
Ming
