On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 03:42:45PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-09-03 at 21:46 +0800, weiping zhang wrote:
> > if blk-mq use "none" io scheduler, nr_request get a wrong value when
> > input a number > tag_set->queue_depth. blk_mq_tag_update_depth will get
> > the smaller one min(nr, set->queue_depth), and then q->nr_request get a
> > wrong value.
> > 
> > Reproduce:
> > 
> > echo none > /sys/block/nvme0n1/queue/ioscheduler
> > echo 1000000 > /sys/block/nvme0n1/queue/nr_requests
> > cat /sys/block/nvme0n1/queue/nr_requests
> > 1000000
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: weiping zhang <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >  block/blk-mq.c | 7 +++++--
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> > index f84d145..8303e5e 100644
> > --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> > +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> > @@ -2622,8 +2622,11 @@ int blk_mq_update_nr_requests(struct request_queue 
> > *q, unsigned int nr)
> >              * queue depth. This is similar to what the old code would do.
> >              */
> >             if (!hctx->sched_tags) {
> > -                   ret = blk_mq_tag_update_depth(hctx, &hctx->tags,
> > -                                                   min(nr, 
> > set->queue_depth),
> > +                   if (nr > set->queue_depth) {
> > +                           nr = set->queue_depth;
> > +                           pr_warn("reduce nr_request to %u\n", nr);
> > +                   }
> > +                   ret = blk_mq_tag_update_depth(hctx, &hctx->tags, nr,
> >                                                     false);
> >             } else {
> >                     ret = blk_mq_tag_update_depth(hctx, &hctx->sched_tags,
> 
> Shouldn't this code return -EINVAL or -ERANGE if 'nr' is too large? That will 
> help to
> keep user space code simple that updates the queue depth.

Hi Bart,

The reason why not return -EINVAL is keeping alin with minimum checking in 
queue_requests_store,
if you insist return -EINVAL/-ERANGE, minimum checking should also keep
same behavior. Both return error meesage and quietly changing are okey
for me. Which way do you prefer ?

static ssize_t
queue_requests_store(struct request_queue *q, const char *page, size_t count)
{
        unsigned long nr;
        int ret, err;

        if (!q->request_fn && !q->mq_ops)
                return -EINVAL;

        ret = queue_var_store(&nr, page, count);
        if (ret < 0)
                return ret;

        if (nr < BLKDEV_MIN_RQ)
                nr = BLKDEV_MIN_RQ;

Thanks

Reply via email to