On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 12:58:15AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > index 5d83a162d03b..c1d5e4e36125 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> > @@ -1635,8 +1635,11 @@ static blk_status_t scsi_mq_prep_fn(struct request
> > *req)
> >
> > static void scsi_mq_done(struct scsi_cmnd *cmd)
> > {
> > + if (unlikely(test_and_set_bit(__SCMD_COMPLETE, >flags)))
> > + return;
> > trace_scsi_dispatch_cmd_done(cmd);
> > - blk_mq_complete_request(cmd->request);
> > + if (unlikely(!blk_mq_complete_request(cmd->request)))
> > + clear_bit(__SCMD_COMPLETE, >flags);
> > }
>
> This looks a little odd to me. If we didn't complete the command
> someone else did. Why would we clear the bit in this case?
It's only to go along with the fake timeout. If we don't clear the bit,
then then scsi timeout handler will believe it has nothing to do because
scsi did its required part. The block layer just pretends the LLD didn't
do its part, so scsi has to play along too.
> > static void scsi_mq_put_budget(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> > @@ -1701,6 +1704,7 @@ static blk_status_t scsi_queue_rq(struct
> > blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> > goto out_dec_host_busy;
> > req->rq_flags |= RQF_DONTPREP;
> > } else {
> > + cmd->flags &= ~SCMD_COMPLETE;
> > blk_mq_start_request(req);
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/include/scsi/scsi_cmnd.h b/include/scsi/scsi_cmnd.h
> > index d6fd2aba0380..ded7c7194a28 100644
> > --- a/include/scsi/scsi_cmnd.h
> > +++ b/include/scsi/scsi_cmnd.h
> > @@ -58,6 +58,9 @@ struct scsi_pointer {
> > #define SCMD_TAGGED(1 << 0)
> > #define SCMD_UNCHECKED_ISA_DMA (1 << 1)
> > #define SCMD_INITIALIZED (1 << 2)
> > +
> > +#define __SCMD_COMPLETE3
> > +#define SCMD_COMPLETE (1 << __SCMD_COMPLETE)
>
> This mixing of atomic and non-atomic bitops looks rather dangerous
> to me. Can you add a new atomic_flags just for the completed flag,
> and always use the bitops on it for now? I think we can eventually
> kill most of the existing flags except for SCMD_TAGGED over the
> next merge window or two and then move that over as well.
The only concurrent access is completion + timeout, otherwise access is
single-threaded. I'm using the atomic operations only where it is
needed.
We implicitly clear the SCMD_COMPLETED flag along with SCMD_TAGGED in
scsi_init_command() too, and I didn't want to add new overhead with
new atomics.
> Otherwise the concept looks fine to me.
