From: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
David Runge <dave@sleepmap.de>,
linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 11:15:27 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <75970f9d-7e59-5fba-280a-d0d935fc4d2f@grimberg.me> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201102181238.GA17806@infradead.org>
>>> There really aren't any rules for this, and it's perfectly legit to
>>> complete from process context. Maybe you're a kthread driven driver and
>>> that's how you handle completions. The block completion path has always
>>> been hard IRQ safe, but possible to call from anywhere.
>>
>> I'm not trying to put restrictions and forbidding completions from a
>> kthread. I'm trying to avoid the pointless softirq dance for no added
>> value. We could:
>
>> to not break that assumption you just mentioned and provide
>> |static inline void blk_mq_complete_request_local(struct request *rq)
>> |{
>> | rq->q->mq_ops->complete(rq);
>> |}
>>
>> so that completion issued from from process context (like those from
>> usb-storage) don't end up waking `ksoftird' (running at SCHED_OTHER)
>> completing the requests but rather performing it right away. The softirq
>> dance makes no sense here.
>
> Agreed. But I don't think your above blk_mq_complete_request_local
> is all that useful either as ->complete is defined by the caller,
> so we could just do a direct call. Basically we should just
> return false from blk_mq_complete_request_remote after updating
> the state when called from process context.
Agreed.
> But given that IIRC
> we are not supposed to check what state we are called from
> we'll need a helper just for updating the state instead and
> ensure the driver uses the right helper. Now of course we might
> have process context callers that still want to bounce to the
> submitting CPU, but in that case we should go directly to a
> workqueue or similar.
This would mean that it may be suboptimal for nvme-tcp to complete
requests in softirq context from the network context (determined by
NIC steering). Because in this case, this would trigger workqueue
schedule on a per-request basis rather than once per .data_ready
call like we do today. Is that correct?
It has been observed that completing commands in softirq context
(network determined cpu) because basically the completion does
IPI + local complete, not IPI + softirq or IPI + workqueue.
> Either way doing this properly will probabl involve an audit of all
> drivers, but I think that is worth it.
Agree.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-04 19:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-21 17:50 5.9.1-rt18: issues with Firewire card on AMD hardware David Runge
2020-10-23 11:04 ` [PATCH RFC] blk-mq: Don't IPI requests on PREEMPT_RT Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-23 11:21 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-23 13:52 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-27 9:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-27 10:11 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-27 16:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-27 17:05 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-10-27 17:23 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-27 17:59 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-27 20:58 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-28 6:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-28 14:12 ` [PATCH 1/3] blk-mq: Don't complete on a remote CPU in force threaded mode Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-28 14:12 ` [PATCH 2/3] blk-mq: Always complete remote completions requests in softirq Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-28 14:12 ` [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-28 14:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-28 14:47 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-29 13:12 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-29 14:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-29 14:56 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-29 14:57 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-10-29 20:03 ` Sagi Grimberg
2020-10-29 21:01 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-29 21:07 ` Sagi Grimberg
2020-10-31 10:41 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-31 15:00 ` Jens Axboe
2020-10-31 15:01 ` Jens Axboe
2020-10-31 18:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-11-02 9:55 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-11-02 18:12 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-11-04 19:15 ` Sagi Grimberg [this message]
2020-11-06 15:23 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2020-10-28 10:04 ` [PATCH RFC] blk-mq: Don't IPI requests on PREEMPT_RT Peter Zijlstra
2020-10-26 0:37 ` 5.9.1-rt18: issues with Firewire card on AMD hardware David Runge
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=75970f9d-7e59-5fba-280a-d0d935fc4d2f@grimberg.me \
--to=sagi@grimberg.me \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=dave@sleepmap.de \
--cc=dwagner@suse.de \
--cc=efault@gmx.de \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).