[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [dm-devel] block: properly handle flush/fua requests in blk_insert_cloned_request



On Tue, Aug 09 2011 at  1:52pm -0400,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal redhat com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 01:43:47PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 09 2011 at 12:13pm -0400,
> > Tejun Heo <tj kernel org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2011 at 11:53:51AM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > > > Tejun Heo <tj kernel org> writes:
> > > > > I'm a bit confused.  We still need ELEVATOR_INSERT_FLUSH fix for
> > > > > insertion paths, right?  Or is blk_insert_cloned_request() supposed to
> > > > > used only by request based dm which lives under the elevator?  If so,
> > > > > it would be great to make that explicit in the comment.  Maybe just
> > > > > renaming it to blk_insert_dm_cloned_request() would be better as it
> > > > > wouldn't be safe for other cases anyway.
> > > > 
> > > > request-based dm is the only caller at present.  I'm not a fan of
> > > > renaming the function, but I'm more than willing to comment it.
> > > 
> > > I'm still confused and don't think the patch is correct (you can't
> > > turn off REQ_FUA without decomposing it to data + post flush).
> > > 
> > > Going through flush machinery twice is okay and I think is the right
> > > thing to do.  At the upper queue, the request is decomposed to member
> > > requests.  After decomposition, it's either REQ_FLUSH w/o data or data
> > > request w/ or w/o REQ_FUA.  When the decomposed request reaches lower
> > > queue, the lower queue will then either short-circuit it, execute
> > > as-is or decompose data w/ REQ_FUA into data + REQ_FLUSH sequence.
> > > 
> > > AFAICS, the breakages are...
> > > 
> > > * ELEVATOR_INSERT_FLUSH not used properly from insert paths.
> > > 
> > > * Short circuit not kicking in for the dm requests. (the above and the
> > >   policy patch should solve this, right?)
> > > 
> > > * BUG(!rq->bio || ...) in blk_insert_flush().  I think we can lift
> > >   this restriction for empty REQ_FLUSH but also dm can just send down
> > >   requests with empty bio.
> > 
> > [cc'ing dm-devel]
> > 
> > All of these issues have come to light because DM was not setting
> > flush_flags based on the underlying device(s).  Now fixed in v3.1-rc1:
> > ed8b752 dm table: set flush capability based on underlying devices
> > 
> > Given that commit, and that request-based DM is beneath the elevator, it
> > seems any additional effort to have DM flushes re-enter the flush
> > machinary is unnecessary.
> > 
> > We expect:
> > 1) flushes to have gone through the flush machinary
> > 2) no FLUSH/FUA should be entering underlying queues if not supported
> > 
> > I think it best to just document the expectation that any FLUSH/FUA
> > request that enters blk_insert_cloned_request() will already match the
> > queue that the request is being sent to.  One way to document it is to
> > change Jeff's flag striping in to pure BUG_ON()s, e.g.:
> > 
> > ---
> >  block/blk-core.c |    8 ++++++++
> >  1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
> > index b627558..201bb27 100644
> > --- a/block/blk-core.c
> > +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> > @@ -1710,6 +1710,14 @@ int blk_insert_cloned_request(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq)
> >  	    should_fail_request(&rq->rq_disk->part0, blk_rq_bytes(rq)))
> >  		return -EIO;
> >  
> > +	/*
> > +	 * All FLUSH/FUA requests are expected to have gone through the
> > +	 * flush machinary.  If a request's cmd_flags doesn't match the
> > +	 * flush_flags of the underlying request_queue it is a bug.
> > +	 */
> > +	BUG_ON((rq->cmd_flags & REQ_FLUSH) && !(q->flush_flags & REQ_FLUSH));
> > +	BUG_ON((rq->cmd_flags & REQ_FUA) && !(q->flush_flags & REQ_FUA));
> > +
> 
> Actually this makes sense and is simple. :-) Is BUG_ON() too harsh, how
> about WARN_ONCE() variants? To me system continues to work so warning 
> is probably good enough.

Sure, WARN_ONCE() is fine by me.

Seems Tejun wants a more involved fix though.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]