Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: Properly init bios from blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx()

[John Garry]

On 25/10/2022 01:34, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > but sometimes we just need to allocate for a specific HW
> > > > queue...
> > > >
> > > > For my usecase of interest, it should not impact if the cpumask of the HW
> > > > queue goes offline after selecting the cpu in blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx(),
> > > > so any race is ok ... I think.
> > > >
> > > > However it should be still possible to make blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx() more
> > > > robust. How about using something like work_on_cpu_safe() to allocate and
> > > > execute the request with blk_mq_alloc_request() on a cpu associated with the
> > > > HW queue, such that we know the cpu is online and stays online until we
> > > > execute it? Or also extent to work_on_cpumask_safe() variant, so that we
> > > > don't need to try all cpus in the mask (to see if online)?
> > > But all cpus on this hctx->cpumask could become offline.
> > If all hctx->cpumask are offline then we should not allocate a request and
> > this is acceptable. Maybe I am missing your point.
> As you saw, this API has the above problem too, but any one of CPUs
> may become online later, maybe just during blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx(),
> and it is easy to cause inconsistence.
>
> You didn't share your use case, but for nvme connection request, if it
> is 1:1 mapping, if any one of CPU becomes offline, the controller
> initialization could be failed, that isn't good from user viewpoint at
> all.

My use case is in SCSI EH domain. For my HBA controller of interest, to 
abort an erroneous IO we must send a controller proprietary abort 
command on same HW queue as original command. So we would need to 
allocate this abort request for a specific HW queue.

I mentioned before that if no hctx->cpumask is online then we don't need 
to allocate a request. That is because if no hctx->cpumask is online, 
this means that original erroneous IO must be completed due to nature of 
how blk-mq cpu hotplug handler works, i.e. drained, and then we don't 
actually need to abort it any longer, so ok to not get a request.

I have an RFC series for this work in which I am using 
blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx(). However, as I mentioned before, I can 
experiment with using something like work_on_cpu_safe() to alloc and 
execute the abort request to safeguard against cpu hotplug events.

Thanks,
John