From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Bart Van Assche To: "jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com" , "axboe@kernel.dk" CC: "hch@lst.de" , "jthumshirn@suse.de" , "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "hare@suse.com" , "stern@rowland.harvard.edu" , "ming.lei@redhat.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 10/12] block: Change the runtime power management approach (1/2) Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2018 15:20:54 +0000 Message-ID: <10bda502006c6d3ceef59005610d189a70edc059.camel@wdc.com> References: <20180809194149.15285-1-bart.vanassche@wdc.com> <20180809194149.15285-11-bart.vanassche@wdc.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-7" MIME-Version: 1.0 List-ID: On Fri, 2018-08-10 at 09:59 +-0800, jianchao.wang wrote: +AD4- On 08/10/2018 03:41 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote: +AD4- +AD4- Instead of scheduling runtime resume of a request queue after a +AD4- +AD4- request has been queued, schedule asynchronous resume during re= quest +AD4- +AD4- allocation. The new pm+AF8-request+AF8-resume() calls occur aft= er +AD4- +AD4- blk+AF8-queue+AF8-enter() has increased the q+AF8-usage+AF8-cou= nter request queue +AD4-=20 +AD4- +AF4AXgBeAF4AXgBeAF4AXgBeAF4AXgBeAF4AXgBeAF4A= XgBeAF4AXgBeAF4AXgBeAF4AXgBeAF4AXgBeAF4AXgBeAF4AXgBeAF4AXgBeAF4AXgBeAF4- +AD4- +AD4- member. This change is needed for a later patch that will make = request +AD4- +AD4- allocation block while the queue status is not RPM+AF8-ACTIVE. +AD4-=20 +AD4- Is it +ACI-after getting q-+AD4-q+AF8-usage+AF8-counter fails+ACI- ? +AD4- And also this blk+AF8-pm+AF8-request+AF8-resume will not affect the = normal path. +ADs-) Right, the commit message needs to be brought in sync with the code. Bart.