From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] block: make blk_poll() take a parameter on whether to spin or not
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 00:05:44 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181119080544.GF9622@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181117214354.822-7-axboe@kernel.dk>
> -bool blk_poll(struct request_queue *q, blk_qc_t cookie)
> +bool blk_poll(struct request_queue *q, blk_qc_t cookie, bool spin)
I find the paramter name a little confusing. Maybe wait_for_request,
although I don't particularly like that one either. But we really need
to document the parameter well here, no matter what we end up naming
it. And we should use a consistent name through the whole stack.
> index c1ec3475a140..f6971b45bc54 100644
> --- a/drivers/nvme/target/io-cmd-bdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvme/target/io-cmd-bdev.c
> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ static void nvmet_bdev_execute_rw(struct nvmet_req *req)
>
> cookie = submit_bio(bio);
>
> - blk_poll(bdev_get_queue(req->ns->bdev), cookie);
> + blk_poll(bdev_get_queue(req->ns->bdev), cookie, true);
This opportunistic poll is pretty bogus now as we never set the HIPRI
flag and it should probably be removed in a prep patch. We should then
later try to use a scheme similar to your aio polling for the nvme
target as well.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: hch@infradead.org (Christoph Hellwig)
Subject: [PATCH 6/7] block: make blk_poll() take a parameter on whether to spin or not
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 00:05:44 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181119080544.GF9622@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181117214354.822-7-axboe@kernel.dk>
> -bool blk_poll(struct request_queue *q, blk_qc_t cookie)
> +bool blk_poll(struct request_queue *q, blk_qc_t cookie, bool spin)
I find the paramter name a little confusing. Maybe wait_for_request,
although I don't particularly like that one either. But we really need
to document the parameter well here, no matter what we end up naming
it. And we should use a consistent name through the whole stack.
> index c1ec3475a140..f6971b45bc54 100644
> --- a/drivers/nvme/target/io-cmd-bdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvme/target/io-cmd-bdev.c
> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ static void nvmet_bdev_execute_rw(struct nvmet_req *req)
>
> cookie = submit_bio(bio);
>
> - blk_poll(bdev_get_queue(req->ns->bdev), cookie);
> + blk_poll(bdev_get_queue(req->ns->bdev), cookie, true);
This opportunistic poll is pretty bogus now as we never set the HIPRI
flag and it should probably be removed in a prep patch. We should then
later try to use a scheme similar to your aio polling for the nvme
target as well.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-19 8:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-17 21:43 [PATCHSET v4] Various block optimizations Jens Axboe
2018-11-17 21:43 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-17 21:43 ` [PATCH 1/7] block: avoid ordered task state change for polled IO Jens Axboe
2018-11-17 21:43 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-19 7:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-19 7:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-17 21:43 ` [PATCH 2/7] block: have ->poll_fn() return number of entries polled Jens Axboe
2018-11-17 21:43 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-19 7:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-19 7:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-25 10:52 ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-11-25 10:52 ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-11-25 13:41 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-25 13:41 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-27 10:10 ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-11-27 10:10 ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-11-27 15:20 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-27 15:20 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-17 21:43 ` [PATCH 3/7] nvme-fc: remove unused poll implementation Jens Axboe
2018-11-17 21:43 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-19 7:59 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-19 7:59 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-19 15:19 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-19 15:19 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-19 19:00 ` James Smart
2018-11-19 19:00 ` James Smart
2018-11-17 21:43 ` [PATCH 4/7] blk-mq: when polling for IO, look for any completion Jens Axboe
2018-11-17 21:43 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-19 8:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-19 8:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-19 15:20 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-19 15:20 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-17 21:43 ` [PATCH 5/7] blk-mq: remove 'tag' parameter from mq_ops->poll() Jens Axboe
2018-11-17 21:43 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-19 8:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-19 8:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-17 21:43 ` [PATCH 6/7] block: make blk_poll() take a parameter on whether to spin or not Jens Axboe
2018-11-17 21:43 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-19 8:05 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2018-11-19 8:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-19 15:21 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-19 15:21 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-20 9:11 ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-11-20 9:11 ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-11-17 21:43 ` [PATCH 7/7] blk-mq: ensure mq_ops ->poll() is entered at least once Jens Axboe
2018-11-17 21:43 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-19 8:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-19 8:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20181119080544.GF9622@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.