From: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] blk-mq: make sure elevator callbacks aren't called for passthrough request
Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 12:13:04 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZGUZMATdnt8hFM+A@kbusch-mbp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZGRJaLSx6hToubQ7@ovpn-8-19.pek2.redhat.com>
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:26:32AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 08:47:46AM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
>
> > And the passthrough case is special with users of that interface taking
> > on a greater responsibility and generally want the kernel out of the
> > way. I don't think anyone would purposefully run a tag intense workload
> > through that engine at the same time as using a generic one with the
> > scheduler. It definitely should still work, but it doesn't need to be
> > fair, right?
>
> I guess it may work, but question is that what we can get from this kind
> of big change? And I think this approach may be one following work if it is
> proved as useful.
I'm just trying to remove any need for side channels to bypass block
layer functionality, like this one:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2023-April/039522.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-17 18:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-15 14:45 [PATCH V2 0/2] blk-mq: handle passthrough request as really passthrough Ming Lei
2023-05-15 14:46 ` [PATCH V2 1/2] blk-mq: don't queue plugged passthrough requests into scheduler Ming Lei
2023-05-16 6:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-05-16 8:10 ` Ming Lei
2023-05-17 7:20 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-05-15 14:46 ` [PATCH V2 2/2] blk-mq: make sure elevator callbacks aren't called for passthrough request Ming Lei
2023-05-15 15:52 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-05-15 20:22 ` Keith Busch
2023-05-16 1:20 ` Ming Lei
2023-05-16 6:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-05-16 8:39 ` Ming Lei
2023-05-17 7:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-05-17 8:58 ` Ming Lei
2023-05-16 14:47 ` Keith Busch
2023-05-17 3:26 ` Ming Lei
2023-05-17 18:13 ` Keith Busch [this message]
2023-05-18 1:22 ` 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=ZGUZMATdnt8hFM+A@kbusch-mbp \
--to=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@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.