linux-block.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc: linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mmc <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mmc: core: Use blk_mq_complete_request_direct().
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2021 13:32:42 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPDyKFrnmevHeCZ3Fb3XCOx6cHvEv6b3ktYdU-WAnuuq8L4kXQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20211018135559.244400-3-bigeasy@linutronix.de>

+ Adrian

On Mon, 18 Oct 2021 at 15:56, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
<bigeasy@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> The completion callback for the sdhci-pci device is invoked from a
> kworker.
> I couldn't identify in which context is mmc_blk_mq_req_done() invoke but
> the remaining caller are from invoked from preemptible context. Here it
> would make sense to complete the request directly instead scheduling
> ksoftirqd for its completion.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>

Thanks for working on this!

I have looped in Adrian, to allow him to provide us with his input too.

> ---
>  drivers/mmc/core/block.c | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
>  1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/core/block.c b/drivers/mmc/core/block.c
> index 431af5e8be2f8..7d6b43fe52e8a 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/core/block.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/core/block.c
> @@ -2051,7 +2051,8 @@ static void mmc_blk_mq_dec_in_flight(struct mmc_queue *mq, struct request *req)
>                 mmc_put_card(mq->card, &mq->ctx);
>  }
>
> -static void mmc_blk_mq_post_req(struct mmc_queue *mq, struct request *req)
> +static void mmc_blk_mq_post_req(struct mmc_queue *mq, struct request *req,
> +                               bool can_sleep)
>  {
>         struct mmc_queue_req *mqrq = req_to_mmc_queue_req(req);
>         struct mmc_request *mrq = &mqrq->brq.mrq;
> @@ -2063,10 +2064,14 @@ static void mmc_blk_mq_post_req(struct mmc_queue *mq, struct request *req)
>          * Block layer timeouts race with completions which means the normal
>          * completion path cannot be used during recovery.
>          */
> -       if (mq->in_recovery)
> +       if (mq->in_recovery) {
>                 mmc_blk_mq_complete_rq(mq, req);
> -       else if (likely(!blk_should_fake_timeout(req->q)))
> -               blk_mq_complete_request(req);
> +       } else if (likely(!blk_should_fake_timeout(req->q))) {
> +               if (can_sleep)
> +                       blk_mq_complete_request_direct(req, mmc_blk_mq_complete);
> +               else
> +                       blk_mq_complete_request(req);
> +       }
>
>         mmc_blk_mq_dec_in_flight(mq, req);
>  }
> @@ -2087,7 +2092,7 @@ void mmc_blk_mq_recovery(struct mmc_queue *mq)
>
>         mmc_blk_urgent_bkops(mq, mqrq);
>
> -       mmc_blk_mq_post_req(mq, req);
> +       mmc_blk_mq_post_req(mq, req, true);
>  }
>
>  static void mmc_blk_mq_complete_prev_req(struct mmc_queue *mq,
> @@ -2106,7 +2111,7 @@ static void mmc_blk_mq_complete_prev_req(struct mmc_queue *mq,
>         if (prev_req)
>                 *prev_req = mq->complete_req;
>         else
> -               mmc_blk_mq_post_req(mq, mq->complete_req);
> +               mmc_blk_mq_post_req(mq, mq->complete_req, true);
>
>         mq->complete_req = NULL;
>
> @@ -2178,7 +2183,8 @@ static void mmc_blk_mq_req_done(struct mmc_request *mrq)
>         mq->rw_wait = false;
>         wake_up(&mq->wait);
>
> -       mmc_blk_mq_post_req(mq, req);
> +       /* context unknown */
> +       mmc_blk_mq_post_req(mq, req, false);

So it seems we would benefit from knowing the context here, right?

At this point, what you suggest seems like a reasonable way forward
(assuming atomic context), but in a next step we could potentially add
a non-atomic helper function for mmc host drivers to call, when that
is suitable. Would that make sense you think?

>  }
>
>  static bool mmc_blk_rw_wait_cond(struct mmc_queue *mq, int *err)
> @@ -2238,7 +2244,7 @@ static int mmc_blk_mq_issue_rw_rq(struct mmc_queue *mq,
>         err = mmc_start_request(host, &mqrq->brq.mrq);
>
>         if (prev_req)
> -               mmc_blk_mq_post_req(mq, prev_req);
> +               mmc_blk_mq_post_req(mq, prev_req, true);
>
>         if (err)
>                 mq->rw_wait = false;

Kind regards
Uffe

  reply	other threads:[~2021-10-19 11:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-18 13:55 [PATCH v2 0/2] blk-mq: Allow to complete requests directly Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-10-18 13:55 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] blk-mq: Add blk_mq_complete_request_direct() Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-10-18 15:20   ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-10-25  6:45     ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-10-18 13:55 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] mmc: core: Use blk_mq_complete_request_direct() Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-10-19 11:32   ` Ulf Hansson [this message]
2021-10-20  6:39     ` Adrian Hunter
2021-10-25  6:44     ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2021-10-21 19:45   ` Ulf Hansson

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=CAPDyKFrnmevHeCZ3Fb3XCOx6cHvEv6b3ktYdU-WAnuuq8L4kXQ@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=ulf.hansson@linaro.org \
    --cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mmc@vger.kernel.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).