On Feb 11 22:49, Minwoo Im wrote:
> On 21-02-11 13:07:08, Klaus Jensen wrote:
> > On Feb 11 11:49, Minwoo Im wrote:
> > > On 21-01-27 14:15:05, Klaus Jensen wrote:
> > > > From: Klaus Jensen <k.jen...@samsung.com>
> > > >
> > > > For most commands, when issuing an AIO, the BlockAIOCB is stored in the
> > > > NvmeRequest aiocb pointer when the AIO is issued. The purpose of storing
> > > > this is to allow the AIO to be cancelled when deleting submission
> > > > queues (it is currently not used for Abort).
> > > >
> > > > Since the addition of the Dataset Management command and Zoned
> > > > Namespaces, NvmeRequests may involve more than one AIO and the AIOs are
> > > > issued without saving a reference to the BlockAIOCB. This is a problem
> > > > since nvme_del_sq will attempt to cancel outstanding AIOs, potentially
> > > > with an invalid BlockAIOCB.
> > > >
> > > > Fix this by instead of explicitly cancelling the requests, just allow
> > > > the AIOs to complete by draining the namespace blockdevs.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Klaus Jensen <k.jen...@samsung.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > hw/block/nvme.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
> > > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/hw/block/nvme.c b/hw/block/nvme.c
> > > > index 316858fd8adf..91f6fb6da1e2 100644
> > > > --- a/hw/block/nvme.c
> > > > +++ b/hw/block/nvme.c
> > > > @@ -403,6 +403,7 @@ static void nvme_req_clear(NvmeRequest *req)
> > > > {
> > > > req->ns = NULL;
> > > > req->opaque = NULL;
> > > > + req->aiocb = NULL;
> > > > memset(&req->cqe, 0x0, sizeof(req->cqe));
> > > > req->status = NVME_SUCCESS;
> > > > }
> > > > @@ -2396,6 +2397,7 @@ static uint16_t nvme_del_sq(NvmeCtrl *n,
> > > > NvmeRequest *req)
> > > > NvmeSQueue *sq;
> > > > NvmeCQueue *cq;
> > > > uint16_t qid = le16_to_cpu(c->qid);
> > > > + int i;
> > > >
> > > > if (unlikely(!qid || nvme_check_sqid(n, qid))) {
> > > > trace_pci_nvme_err_invalid_del_sq(qid);
> > > > @@ -2404,12 +2406,18 @@ static uint16_t nvme_del_sq(NvmeCtrl *n,
> > > > NvmeRequest *req)
> > > >
> > > > trace_pci_nvme_del_sq(qid);
> > > >
> > > > - sq = n->sq[qid];
> > > > - while (!QTAILQ_EMPTY(&sq->out_req_list)) {
> > > > - r = QTAILQ_FIRST(&sq->out_req_list);
> > > > - assert(r->aiocb);
> > > > - blk_aio_cancel(r->aiocb);
> > > > + for (i = 1; i <= n->num_namespaces; i++) {
> > > > + NvmeNamespace *ns = nvme_ns(n, i);
> > > > + if (!ns) {
> > > > + continue;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + nvme_ns_drain(ns);
> > >
> > > If we just drain the entire namespaces here, commands which has nothing
> > > to do with the target sq to be deleted will be drained. And this might
> > > be a burden for a single SQ deletion.
> > >
> >
> > That is true. But how often would you dynamically delete and create I/O
> > submission queues in the fast path?
>
> Delete I/O queues are not that often in the working NVMe controller, but
> it might be a good case for the exception test from the host side like:
> I/O queue deletion during I/O workloads. If delete I/O queues are
> returning by aborting their own requests only and quickly respond to the
> host, then I think it might be a good one to test with. Handling
> requests gracefully sometimes don't cause corner cases from the host
> point-of-view. But, QEMU is not only for the host testing, so I am not
> sure that QEMU NVMe device should handle things gracefully or try to do
> something exactly as the real hardware(but, we don't know all the
> hardware behavior ;)).
>
> (But, Right. If I'm only talking about the kernel, then kernel does not
> delete queues during the fast-path hot workloads. But it's sometimes
> great to test something on their own driver or application)
>
> > > By the way, agree with the multiple AIOs references problem for newly
> > > added
> > > commands. But, shouldn't we manage the inflight AIO request references
> > > for
> > > the newlly added commands with some other way and kill them all
> > > explicitly as it was? Maybe some of list for AIOCBs?
> >
> > I was hesitant to add more stuff to NvmeRequest (like a QTAILQ to track
> > this). Getting a steady-state with draining was an easy fix.
>
> Graceful handling is easy to go with. I am not expert for the overall
> purpose of the QEMU NVMe device model, but I'm curious that which one we
> need to take first between `Easy to go vs. What device should do`.
> Alright, point taken :) I'll post an RFC patch that tracks this properly instead of halfass'ing it.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
