linux-block.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@redhat.com>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>,
	linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>,
	dm-devel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] scsi: make sure that request queue queiesce and unquiesce balanced
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2021 21:43:27 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <10c279f54ed0b24cb1ac0861f9a407e6b64f64da.camel@HansenPartnership.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211021145918.2691762-3-ming.lei@redhat.com>

On Thu, 2021-10-21 at 22:59 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> For fixing queue quiesce race between driver and block layer(elevator
> switch, update nr_requests, ...), we need to support concurrent
> quiesce
> and unquiesce, which requires the two call balanced.
> 
> It isn't easy to audit that in all scsi drivers, especially the two
> may
> be called from different contexts, so do it in scsi core with one
> per-device
> bit flag & global spinlock, basically zero cost since request queue
> quiesce
> is seldom triggered.
> 
> Reported-by: Yi Zhang <yi.zhang@redhat.com>
> Fixes: e70feb8b3e68 ("blk-mq: support concurrent queue
> quiesce/unquiesce")
> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
> ---
>  drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c    | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> ----
>  include/scsi/scsi_device.h |  1 +
>  2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> index 51fcd46be265..414f4daf8005 100644
> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> @@ -2638,6 +2638,40 @@ static int
> __scsi_internal_device_block_nowait(struct scsi_device *sdev)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(sdev_queue_stop_lock);
> +
> +void scsi_start_queue(struct scsi_device *sdev)
> +{
> +	bool need_start;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&sdev_queue_stop_lock, flags);
> +	need_start = sdev->queue_stopped;
> +	sdev->queue_stopped = 0;
> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sdev_queue_stop_lock, flags);
> +
> +	if (need_start)
> +		blk_mq_unquiesce_queue(sdev->request_queue);

Well, this is a classic atomic pattern:

if (cmpxchg(&sdev->queue_stopped, 1, 0))
	blk_mq_unquiesce_queue(sdev->request_queue);

The reason to do it with atomics rather than spinlocks is

   1. no need to disable interrupts: atomics are locked
   2. faster because a spinlock takes an exclusive line every time but the
      read to check the value can be in shared mode in cmpxchg
   3. it's just shorter and better code.

The only minor downside is queue_stopped now needs to be a u32.

James



  reply	other threads:[~2021-11-02  1:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-21 14:59 [PATCH 0/3] block: keep quiesce & unquiesce balanced for scsi/dm Ming Lei
2021-10-21 14:59 ` [PATCH 1/3] scsi: avoid to quiesce sdev->request_queue two times Ming Lei
2021-10-21 14:59 ` [PATCH 2/3] scsi: make sure that request queue queiesce and unquiesce balanced Ming Lei
2021-11-02  1:43   ` James Bottomley [this message]
2021-11-02 12:58     ` Ming Lei
2021-11-02 12:59     ` Jens Axboe
2021-11-02 14:33       ` James Bottomley
2021-11-02 14:36         ` Jens Axboe
2021-11-02 14:41           ` Jens Axboe
2021-11-02 14:47             ` James Bottomley
2021-11-02 14:49               ` Jens Axboe
2021-11-02 14:52               ` Jens Axboe
2021-10-21 14:59 ` [PATCH 3/3] dm: don't stop request queue after the dm device is suspended Ming Lei
2021-11-01 16:56   ` Mike Snitzer
2021-10-25  1:43 ` [PATCH 0/3] block: keep quiesce & unquiesce balanced for scsi/dm Yi Zhang
2021-11-01 19:54 ` Jens Axboe

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=10c279f54ed0b24cb1ac0861f9a407e6b64f64da.camel@HansenPartnership.com \
    --to=james.bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
    --cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
    --cc=yi.zhang@redhat.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: 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).