lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Aug]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 0/3] Handle update hardware queues and queue freeze more carefully
From
Date
On 8/20/2021 4:55 AM, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 10:48:32AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
>> Then we try to do the same thing again which fails, thus we never
>> make progress.
>>
>> So clearly we need to update number of queues at one point. What would
>> be the right thing to do here? As I understood we need to be careful
>> with frozen requests. Can we abort them (is this even possible in this
>> state?) and requeue them before we update the queue numbers?
>
> After starring a bit longer at the reset path, I think there is no
> pending request in any queue. nvme_fc_delete_association() calls
> __nvme_fc_abort_outstanding_ios() which makes sure all queues are
> drained (usage counter is 0). Also it clears the NVME_FC_Q_LIVE bit,
> which prevents further request added to queues.

yes, as long as we haven't attempted to create the io queues via
nvme_fc_connect_io_queues(), nothing should be successful queueing and
running down the hctx to start the io. nvme_fc_connect_io_queues() will
use the queue for the Connect cmd, which is probably what generated the
prior -16389 error.

Which says:"nvme-fc: Update hardware queues before using them" should be
good to use.

>
> I start wonder why we have to do the nvme_start_freeze() in the first
> place and why we want to wait for the freeze. 88e837ed0f1f ("nvme-fc:
> wait for queues to freeze before calling update_hr_hw_queues") doesn't
> really tell why we need wait for the freeze.

I think that is probably going to be true as well - no need to
freeze/unfreeze around this path. This was also a rather late add (last
oct), so we had been running without the freezes for a long time,
granted few devices change their queue counts.

I'll have to see if I can find what prompted the change. At first blush,
I'm fine reverting it.

>
> Given we know the usage counter of the queues is 0, I think we are
> safe to move the blk_mq_update_nr_hw_queues() before the start queue
> code. Also note nvme_fc_create_hw_io_queues() calls
> blk_mq_freeze_queue() but it wont block as we are sure there is no
> pending request.

Agree.

-- james

>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-nvme mailing list
> Linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvme
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-08-20 17:28    [W:0.033 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site