[dm-devel] [PATCH v4 6/6] dm rq: Avoid that request processing stalls sporadically

[Ming Lei]

On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 05:12:50PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-14 at 09:13 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 09:59:57AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On 04/12/17 19:20, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 06:38:07PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > > > If the blk-mq core would always rerun a hardware queue if a block driver
> > > > > returns BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY then that would cause 100% of a single CPU core
> > > > 
> > > > It won't casue 100% CPU utilization since we restart queue in completion
> > > > path and at that time at least one tag is available, then progress can be
> > > > made.
> > > 
> > > Hello Ming,
> > > 
> > > Sorry but you are wrong. If .queue_rq() returns BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY
> > > then it's likely that calling .queue_rq() again after only a few
> > > microseconds will cause it to return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY again. If you
> > > don't believe me, change "if (!blk_mq_sched_needs_restart(hctx) &&
> > > !test_bit(BLK_MQ_S_TAG_WAITING, &hctx->state)) blk_mq_run_hw_queue(hctx,
> > > true);" into "blk_mq_run_hw_queue(hctx, true);", trigger a busy
> > 
> > Yes, that can be true, but I mean it is still OK to run the queue again
> > with
> > 
> > 	if (!blk_mq_sched_needs_restart(hctx) &&
> > 	    !test_bit(BLK_MQ_S_TAG_WAITING, &hctx->state))
> > 			blk_mq_run_hw_queue(hctx, true);
> > 
> > and restarting queue in __blk_mq_finish_request() when
> > BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY is returned from .queue_rq(). And both are in current
> > blk-mq implementation.
> > 
> > Then why do we need blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queue(hctx, 100/*ms*/) in dm?
> 
> Because if dm_mq_queue_rq() returns BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY that there is no
> guarantee that __blk_mq_finish_request() will be called later on for the
> same queue. dm_mq_queue_rq() can e.g. return BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY while no
> dm requests are in progress because the SCSI error handler is active for
> all underlying paths. See also scsi_lld_busy() and scsi_host_in_recovery().

OK, thanks Bart for the explanation.

Looks a very interesting BLK_MQ_RQ_QUEUE_BUSY case which isn't casued by
too many pending I/O, and will study more about this case.


Thanks,
Ming