From: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
James Smart <james.smart@broadcom.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] blk-mq: introduce blk_mq_complete_request_sync()
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 07:32:45 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190327133244.GA8448@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190327085114.12111-2-ming.lei@redhat.com>
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 04:51:13PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> @@ -594,8 +594,11 @@ static void __blk_mq_complete_request(struct request *rq)
> /*
> * For a polled request, always complete locallly, it's pointless
> * to redirect the completion.
> + *
> + * If driver requires to complete the request synchronously,
> + * complete it locally, and it is usually done in error handler.
> */
> - if ((rq->cmd_flags & REQ_HIPRI) ||
> + if ((rq->cmd_flags & REQ_HIPRI) || sync ||
> !test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_SAME_COMP, &q->queue_flags)) {
> q->mq_ops->complete(rq);
> return;
I think this is fine and agree this is fixing a problem, but just
considering an alternative: would it be okay to just temporarily clear
QUEUE_FLAG_SAME_COMP in the necessary error handling that wants a sync
completion so that we're not introducing an additional parameter?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: kbusch@kernel.org (Keith Busch)
Subject: [PATCH V2 1/2] blk-mq: introduce blk_mq_complete_request_sync()
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 07:32:45 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190327133244.GA8448@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190327085114.12111-2-ming.lei@redhat.com>
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019@04:51:13PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> @@ -594,8 +594,11 @@ static void __blk_mq_complete_request(struct request *rq)
> /*
> * For a polled request, always complete locallly, it's pointless
> * to redirect the completion.
> + *
> + * If driver requires to complete the request synchronously,
> + * complete it locally, and it is usually done in error handler.
> */
> - if ((rq->cmd_flags & REQ_HIPRI) ||
> + if ((rq->cmd_flags & REQ_HIPRI) || sync ||
> !test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_SAME_COMP, &q->queue_flags)) {
> q->mq_ops->complete(rq);
> return;
I think this is fine and agree this is fixing a problem, but just
considering an alternative: would it be okay to just temporarily clear
QUEUE_FLAG_SAME_COMP in the necessary error handling that wants a sync
completion so that we're not introducing an additional parameter?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-03-27 13:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-03-27 8:51 [PATCH V2 0/2] blk-mq/nvme: cancel request synchronously Ming Lei
2019-03-27 8:51 ` [PATCH V2 1/2] blk-mq: introduce blk_mq_complete_request_sync() Ming Lei
2019-03-27 8:51 ` Ming Lei
2019-03-27 13:32 ` Keith Busch [this message]
2019-03-27 13:32 ` Keith Busch
2019-03-28 0:50 ` Ming Lei
2019-03-28 0:50 ` Ming Lei
2019-03-27 8:51 ` [PATCH V2 2/2] nvme: cancel request synchronously Ming Lei
2019-03-27 8:51 ` Ming Lei
2019-04-02 3:38 ` [PATCH V2 0/2] blk-mq/nvme: " Ming Lei
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=20190327133244.GA8448@localhost.localdomain \
--to=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=james.smart@broadcom.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
/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.