Re: [PATCH 4/7] blk-mq: allow the driver to pass in an affinity mask

[Keith Busch]

On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 09:48:00PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 10:24:10AM -0400, Keith Busch wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 10:46:24AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 12:38:53PM -0400, Keith Busch wrote:
> > > > This can't be right. We have a single affinity mask for the entire
> > > > set, but what I think we want is an one affinity mask for each
> > > > nr_io_queues. The irq_create_affinity_mask should then create an array
> > > > of cpumasks based on nr_vecs..
> > > 
> > > Nah, this is Thomas' creating abuse of the cpumask type.  Every bit set
> > > in the affinity_mask means this is a cpu we allocate a vector / queue to.
> > 
> > Yeah, I gathered that's what it was providing, but that's just barely
> > not enough information to do something useful. The CPUs that aren't set
> > have to use a previously assigned vector/queue, but which one?
> 
> Always the previous one.  Below is a patch to get us back to the
> previous behavior:

No, that's not right.

Here's my topology info:

  # numactl --hardware
  available: 2 nodes (0-1)
  node 0 cpus: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
  node 0 size: 15745 MB
  node 0 free: 15319 MB
  node 1 cpus: 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
  node 1 size: 16150 MB
  node 1 free: 15758 MB
  node distances:
  node   0   1
0:  10  21
1:  21  10

If I have 16 vectors, the affinity_mask generated by what you're doing
looks like , CPU's 0-15. So the first 16 bits are set since each
of those are the first unique CPU, getting a unique vector just like you
wanted. If an unset bit just means share with the previous, then all of
my thread siblings (CPU's 16-31) get to share with CPU 15. That's awful!

What we want for my CPU topology is the 16th CPU to pair with CPU 0,
17 pairs with 1, 18 with 2, and so on. You can't convey that information
with this scheme. We need affinity_masks per vector.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[PATCH] badblocks: fix overlapping check for clearing

[Tomasz Majchrzak]

Current bad block clear implementation assumes the range to clear
overlaps with at least one bad block already stored. If given range to
clear precedes first bad block in a list, the first entry is incorrectly
updated.

Check not only if stored block end is past clear block end but also if
stored block start is before clear block end.

Signed-off-by: Tomasz Majchrzak 
---
 block/badblocks.c | 6 --
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/badblocks.c b/block/badblocks.c
index 7be53cb..b2ffcc7 100644
--- a/block/badblocks.c
+++ b/block/badblocks.c
@@ -354,7 +354,8 @@ int badblocks_clear(struct badblocks *bb, sector_t s, int 
sectors)
 * current range.  Earlier ranges could also overlap,
 * but only this one can overlap the end of the range.
 */
-   if (BB_OFFSET(p[lo]) + BB_LEN(p[lo]) > target) {
+   if ((BB_OFFSET(p[lo]) + BB_LEN(p[lo]) > target) &&
+   (BB_OFFSET(p[lo]) <= target)) {
/* Partial overlap, leave the tail of this range */
int ack = BB_ACK(p[lo]);
sector_t a = BB_OFFSET(p[lo]);
@@ -377,7 +378,8 @@ int badblocks_clear(struct badblocks *bb, sector_t s, int 
sectors)
lo--;
}
while (lo >= 0 &&
-  BB_OFFSET(p[lo]) + BB_LEN(p[lo]) > s) {
+  (BB_OFFSET(p[lo]) + BB_LEN(p[lo]) > s) &&
+  (BB_OFFSET(p[lo]) <= target)) {
/* This range does overlap */
if (BB_OFFSET(p[lo]) < s) {
/* Keep the early parts of this range. */
-- 
1.8.3.1

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html