On 5/4/21 6:12 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 5/4/21 12:55 PM, John Garry wrote: >> On 04/05/2021 07:17, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >>> On 5/4/21 5:20 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: >>>> On 5/3/21 8:03 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote: >>>>> These commands are set aside before allocating the block-mq tag >>>>> bitmap, >>>>> so they'll never show up as busy in the tag map. >>>> >>>> That doesn't sound correct to me. Should the above perhaps be changed >>>> into "blk_mq_start_request() is never called for internal commands so >>>> they'll never show up as busy in the tag map"? >>>> >>> Yes, will do. >> >> So why don't these - or shouldn't these - turn up in the busy tag map? >> >> One of the motivations to use these block requests for internal >> commands is that we can take advantage of the block layer handling for >> CPU hotplug for MQ hosts, i.e. if blk-mq can't see these are inflight, >> then they would be missed in blk_mq_hctx_notify_offline() -> >> blk_mq_hctx_has_requests(), right? And who knows what else... >> > Oh, but of course it's possible to call 'start' on these requests to > have them counted in the busy map. > I just didn't see the need for it until now, that's all. This is possible but this will require careful review of at least the following code paths such that nothing unexpected happens for internal commands: * The SCSI timeout code. * All blk_mq_tagset_busy_iter() and scsi_host_busy_iter() callers. As an example, scsi_host_busy() must not include LLD-internal commands. Thanks, Bart.
