[PATCH 1/2] nvme: multipath: round-robin: fix logic for non-optimized paths
Hannes Reinecke
hare at suse.de
Fri Jul 17 02:08:07 EDT 2020
On 7/16/20 9:59 PM, mwilck at suse.com wrote:
> From: Martin Wilck <mwilck at suse.com>
>
> Handle the special case where we have exactly one optimized path,
> which we should keep using in this case. Also, use the next
> non-optimized path, not the last one.
>
> Signed-off-by: Martin Wilck <mwilck at suse.com>
> ---
> drivers/nvme/host/multipath.c | 21 +++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/multipath.c b/drivers/nvme/host/multipath.c
> index 74bad4e3d377..2c575b783d3e 100644
> --- a/drivers/nvme/host/multipath.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/multipath.c
> @@ -224,13 +224,8 @@ static struct nvme_ns *nvme_next_ns(struct nvme_ns_head *head,
> static struct nvme_ns *nvme_round_robin_path(struct nvme_ns_head *head,
> int node, struct nvme_ns *old)
> {
> - struct nvme_ns *ns, *found, *fallback = NULL;
> + struct nvme_ns *ns, *found = NULL;
>
> - if (list_is_singular(&head->list)) {
> - if (nvme_path_is_disabled(old))
> - return NULL;
> - return old;
> - }
>
> for (ns = nvme_next_ns(head, old);
> ns != old;
Why do you remove this?
This is an optimisation for single paths, and should stay.
> @@ -242,13 +237,19 @@ static struct nvme_ns *nvme_round_robin_path(struct nvme_ns_head *head,
> found = ns;
> goto out;
> }
> - if (ns->ana_state == NVME_ANA_NONOPTIMIZED)
> - fallback = ns;
> + if (!found && ns->ana_state == NVME_ANA_NONOPTIMIZED)
> + found = ns;
> }
>
> - if (!fallback)
> + /* Fall back to old if it's better than the others */
> + if (!nvme_path_is_disabled(old) &&
> + (old->ana_state == NVME_ANA_OPTIMIZED ||
> + (!found && old->ana_state == NVME_ANA_NONOPTIMIZED)))
> + found = old;
> +
> + if (!found)
> return NULL;
> - found = fallback;
> +
> out:
> rcu_assign_pointer(head->current_path[node], found);
> return found;
>
The problem is that we should have tested all paths from (old + 1)
up to and including (old); currently we're only testing paths from
(old + 1) up to, but excluding, (old).
I would rather use this explanation instead of referring to 'better'
paths; at the very least please name it 'optimal'.
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Teamlead Storage & Networking
hare at suse.de +49 911 74053 688
SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Felix Imendörffer
More information about the Linux-nvme
mailing list