From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Cc: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>,
Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com>,
"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
dm-devel@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] block: directly insert blk-mq request from blk_insert_cloned_request()
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 14:51:07 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <79287d3a-62e0-912e-dcad-e7ab5297ae34@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170911161647.GA55061@redhat.com>
On 09/11/2017 10:16 AM, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> Here is v2 that should obviate the need to rename blk_mq_insert_request
> (by using bools to control run_queue and async).
>
> As for inserting directly into dispatch, if that can be done that is
> great but I'd prefer to have that be a follow-up optimization. This
> fixes the regression in question, and does so in well-known terms.
>
> What do you think?
I think it looks reasonable. My only concern is the use of the software
queues. Depending on the scheduler, they may or may not be used. I'd
need to review the code, but my first thought is that this would break
if you use blk_mq_insert_request() on a device that is managed by
mq-deadline or bfq, for instance. Schedulers are free to use the
software queues, but they are also free to ignore them and use internal
queuing.
Looking at the code, looks like this was changed slightly at some point,
we always flush the software queues, if any of them contain requests. So
it's probably fine.
My earlier suggestion to use just hctx->dispatch for the IO and bypass
the software queues completely. The use case for the dispatch list is
the same, regardless of whether the device has a scheduler attached or
not.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-11 20:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-24 23:16 BFQ + dm-mpath Bart Van Assche
2017-08-30 16:31 ` Paolo Valente
2017-09-05 7:56 ` Paolo Valente
2017-09-05 14:15 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-09-07 15:52 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-09-08 9:13 ` Paolo Valente
2017-09-08 9:13 ` Paolo Valente
2017-09-08 16:41 ` [PATCH] dm mpath: switch IO scheduler of underlying paths to "none" [was: Re: BFQ + dm-mpath] Mike Snitzer
2017-09-08 16:48 ` Jens Axboe
2017-09-08 17:07 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-09-08 19:58 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-09-08 20:28 ` Jens Axboe
2017-09-08 21:42 ` [PATCH] block: directly insert blk-mq request from blk_insert_cloned_request() Mike Snitzer
2017-09-08 21:50 ` Jens Axboe
2017-09-08 22:03 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-09-11 16:16 ` [PATCH v2] " Mike Snitzer
2017-09-11 20:51 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2017-09-11 21:13 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-09-11 21:27 ` Jens Axboe
2017-09-11 21:51 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-09-11 22:30 ` Mike Snitzer
2017-09-11 22:43 ` Jens Axboe
2017-09-14 15:57 ` Ming Lei
2017-09-14 16:30 ` Jens Axboe
2017-09-14 16:33 ` Ming Lei
2017-09-14 16:34 ` Jens Axboe
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=79287d3a-62e0-912e-dcad-e7ab5297ae34@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paolo.valente@linaro.org \
--cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
/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.