Re: [PATCH 7/8] mq-deadline: add blk-mq adaptation of the deadline IO scheduler

[Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>]

> Il giorno 17 dic 2016, alle ore 01:12, Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com> ha scritto:
> 
> This is basically identical to deadline-iosched, except it registers
> as a MQ capable scheduler. This is still a single queue design.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
...
> +
> +static void dd_merged_requests(struct request_queue *q, struct request *req,
> +			       struct request *next)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * if next expires before rq, assign its expire time to rq
> +	 * and move into next position (next will be deleted) in fifo
> +	 */
> +	if (!list_empty(&req->queuelist) && !list_empty(&next->queuelist)) {
> +		if (time_before((unsigned long)next->fifo_time,
> +				(unsigned long)req->fifo_time)) {
> +			list_move(&req->queuelist, &next->queuelist);
> +			req->fifo_time = next->fifo_time;
> +		}
> +	}
> +

Jens,
while trying to imagine the possible causes of Bart's hang with
bfq-mq, I've bumped into the following doubt: in the above function
(in my case, in bfq-mq-'s equivalent of the above function), are
we sure that neither req or next could EVER be in dd->dispatch instead
of dd->fifo_list?  I've tried to verify it, but, although I think it has never
happened in my tests, I was not able to make sure that no unlucky
combination may ever happen (considering also the use of
blk_rq_is_passthrough too, to decide where to put a new request).

I'm making a blunder, right?

Thanks,
Paolo