From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>, Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>, Wen Xiong <wenxiong@us.ibm.com>, John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] blk-mq: not deactivate hctx if the device doesn't use managed irq Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 22:17:15 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <YNsrayg+pbVO+J7I@T590> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1a14a397-6244-928e-5aaa-85c2ccbe0e40@suse.de> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 02:39:14PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 6/29/21 9:49 AM, Ming Lei wrote: > > hctx is deactivated when all CPU in hctx->cpumask become offline by > > draining all requests originated from this hctx and moving new > > allocation to active hctx. This way is for avoiding inflight IO when > > the managed irq is shutdown. > > > > Some drivers(nvme fc, rdma, tcp, loop) doesn't use managed irq, so > > they needn't to deactivate hctx. Also, they are the only user of > > blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx() which is used for connecting io queue. > > And their requirement is that the connect request can be submitted > > via one specified hctx on which all CPU in its hctx->cpumask may have > > become offline. > > > > How can you submit a connect request for a hctx on which all CPUs are > offline? That hctx will be unusable as it'll never be able to receive > interrupts ... I believe BLK_MQ_F_NOT_USE_MANAGED_IRQ is self-explanatory. And the interrupt(non-managed) of this hctx will be migrated to online CPUs, see migrate_one_irq(). For managed irq, we have to prevent new allocation if all CPUs of this hctx is offline because genirq will shutdown the interrupt. > > > Address the requirement for nvme fc/rdma/loop, so the reported kernel > > panic on the following line in blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx() can be fixed. > > > > data.ctx = __blk_mq_get_ctx(q, cpu) > > > > Cc: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> > > Cc: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de> > > Cc: Wen Xiong <wenxiong@us.ibm.com> > > Cc: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> > > Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> > > --- > > block/blk-mq.c | 6 +++++- > > include/linux/blk-mq.h | 1 + > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c > > index df5dc3b756f5..74632f50d969 100644 > > --- a/block/blk-mq.c > > +++ b/block/blk-mq.c > > @@ -494,7 +494,7 @@ struct request *blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx(struct request_queue *q, > > data.hctx = q->queue_hw_ctx[hctx_idx]; > > if (!blk_mq_hw_queue_mapped(data.hctx)) > > goto out_queue_exit; > > - cpu = cpumask_first_and(data.hctx->cpumask, cpu_online_mask); > > + cpu = cpumask_first(data.hctx->cpumask); > > data.ctx = __blk_mq_get_ctx(q, cpu); > > I don't get it. > Doesn't this allow us to allocate a request on a dead cpu, ie the very thing > we try to prevent? It is fine to allocate & dispatch one request to the hctx when all CPU on its cpumask are offline if this hctx's interrupt isn't managed. Thanks, Ming
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> To: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de> Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>, Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>, Wen Xiong <wenxiong@us.ibm.com>, John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] blk-mq: not deactivate hctx if the device doesn't use managed irq Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2021 22:17:15 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <YNsrayg+pbVO+J7I@T590> (raw) In-Reply-To: <1a14a397-6244-928e-5aaa-85c2ccbe0e40@suse.de> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 02:39:14PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > On 6/29/21 9:49 AM, Ming Lei wrote: > > hctx is deactivated when all CPU in hctx->cpumask become offline by > > draining all requests originated from this hctx and moving new > > allocation to active hctx. This way is for avoiding inflight IO when > > the managed irq is shutdown. > > > > Some drivers(nvme fc, rdma, tcp, loop) doesn't use managed irq, so > > they needn't to deactivate hctx. Also, they are the only user of > > blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx() which is used for connecting io queue. > > And their requirement is that the connect request can be submitted > > via one specified hctx on which all CPU in its hctx->cpumask may have > > become offline. > > > > How can you submit a connect request for a hctx on which all CPUs are > offline? That hctx will be unusable as it'll never be able to receive > interrupts ... I believe BLK_MQ_F_NOT_USE_MANAGED_IRQ is self-explanatory. And the interrupt(non-managed) of this hctx will be migrated to online CPUs, see migrate_one_irq(). For managed irq, we have to prevent new allocation if all CPUs of this hctx is offline because genirq will shutdown the interrupt. > > > Address the requirement for nvme fc/rdma/loop, so the reported kernel > > panic on the following line in blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx() can be fixed. > > > > data.ctx = __blk_mq_get_ctx(q, cpu) > > > > Cc: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> > > Cc: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de> > > Cc: Wen Xiong <wenxiong@us.ibm.com> > > Cc: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com> > > Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> > > --- > > block/blk-mq.c | 6 +++++- > > include/linux/blk-mq.h | 1 + > > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c > > index df5dc3b756f5..74632f50d969 100644 > > --- a/block/blk-mq.c > > +++ b/block/blk-mq.c > > @@ -494,7 +494,7 @@ struct request *blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx(struct request_queue *q, > > data.hctx = q->queue_hw_ctx[hctx_idx]; > > if (!blk_mq_hw_queue_mapped(data.hctx)) > > goto out_queue_exit; > > - cpu = cpumask_first_and(data.hctx->cpumask, cpu_online_mask); > > + cpu = cpumask_first(data.hctx->cpumask); > > data.ctx = __blk_mq_get_ctx(q, cpu); > > I don't get it. > Doesn't this allow us to allocate a request on a dead cpu, ie the very thing > we try to prevent? It is fine to allocate & dispatch one request to the hctx when all CPU on its cpumask are offline if this hctx's interrupt isn't managed. Thanks, Ming _______________________________________________ Linux-nvme mailing list Linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvme
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-29 14:17 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-06-29 7:49 [PATCH 0/2] blk-mq: fix blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx Ming Lei 2021-06-29 7:49 ` Ming Lei 2021-06-29 7:49 ` [PATCH 1/2] blk-mq: not deactivate hctx if the device doesn't use managed irq Ming Lei 2021-06-29 7:49 ` Ming Lei 2021-06-29 12:39 ` Hannes Reinecke 2021-06-29 12:39 ` Hannes Reinecke 2021-06-29 14:17 ` Ming Lei [this message] 2021-06-29 14:17 ` Ming Lei 2021-06-29 15:49 ` John Garry 2021-06-29 15:49 ` John Garry 2021-06-30 0:32 ` Ming Lei 2021-06-30 0:32 ` Ming Lei 2021-06-30 9:25 ` John Garry 2021-06-30 9:25 ` John Garry 2021-07-01 9:52 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-07-01 9:52 ` Christoph Hellwig 2021-06-29 23:30 ` Damien Le Moal 2021-06-29 23:30 ` Damien Le Moal 2021-06-30 18:58 ` Sagi Grimberg 2021-06-30 18:58 ` Sagi Grimberg 2021-06-30 21:57 ` Damien Le Moal 2021-06-30 21:57 ` Damien Le Moal 2021-07-01 14:20 ` Keith Busch 2021-07-01 14:20 ` Keith Busch 2021-06-29 7:49 ` [PATCH 2/2] nvme: pass BLK_MQ_F_NOT_USE_MANAGED_IRQ for fc/rdma/tcp/loop Ming Lei 2021-06-29 7:49 ` Ming Lei 2021-06-30 8:15 ` Hannes Reinecke 2021-06-30 8:15 ` Hannes Reinecke 2021-06-30 8:47 ` Ming Lei 2021-06-30 8:47 ` Ming Lei 2021-06-30 8:18 ` [PATCH 0/2] blk-mq: fix blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx Hannes Reinecke 2021-06-30 8:18 ` Hannes Reinecke 2021-06-30 8:42 ` Ming Lei 2021-06-30 8:42 ` Ming Lei 2021-06-30 9:43 ` Hannes Reinecke 2021-06-30 9:43 ` Hannes Reinecke 2021-06-30 9:53 ` Ming Lei 2021-06-30 9:53 ` Ming Lei 2021-06-30 18:59 ` Sagi Grimberg 2021-06-30 18:59 ` Sagi Grimberg 2021-06-30 19:46 ` Hannes Reinecke 2021-06-30 19:46 ` Hannes Reinecke 2021-06-30 23:59 ` Ming Lei 2021-06-30 23:59 ` Ming Lei 2021-07-01 8:00 ` Hannes Reinecke 2021-07-01 8:00 ` Hannes Reinecke 2021-07-01 9:13 ` Ming Lei 2021-07-01 9:13 ` Ming Lei 2021-07-02 9:47 ` Daniel Wagner 2021-07-02 9:47 ` Daniel Wagner
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=YNsrayg+pbVO+J7I@T590 \ --to=ming.lei@redhat.com \ --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \ --cc=dwagner@suse.de \ --cc=hare@suse.de \ --cc=hch@lst.de \ --cc=john.garry@huawei.com \ --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=sagi@grimberg.me \ --cc=wenxiong@us.ibm.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.