From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 10:03:13 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Jens Axboe Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Omar Sandoval , Bart Van Assche , Roman Pen , Hannes Reinecke Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 0/2] block: remove unnecessary RESTART Message-ID: <20171101020312.GA9527@ming.t460p> References: <20171027044330.11921-1-ming.lei@redhat.com> <7921fc66-16de-200b-cc0f-02cf52ef9002@kernel.dk> <20171101014611.GA8200@ming.t460p> <59F9FE28-F31A-47FD-A3FD-90CE1DB38FB2@kernel.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In-Reply-To: <59F9FE28-F31A-47FD-A3FD-90CE1DB38FB2@kernel.dk> List-ID: On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 07:53:03PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > On Oct 31, 2017, at 7:46 PM, Ming Lei wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 02:29:32PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > >>> On 10/26/2017 10:43 PM, Ming Lei wrote: > >>> Hi Jens, > >>> > >>> The 1st patch removes the RESTART for TAG-SHARED because SCSI handles it > >>> by itself, and not necessary to waste CPU to do the expensive RESTART. > >>> And Roman Pen reported that this RESTART cuts half of IOPS in his case. > >>> > >>> The 2nd patch removes the RESTART when .get_budget returns BLK_STS_RESOURCE, > >>> and this RESTART is handled by SCSI's RESTART(scsi_end_request()) too. > >> > >> What base is this against? > > > > The for-next branch of your block tree: > > From when? Doesn’t apply at all today. I just tried today's for-next(top commit is 'MAINTAINERS: Remove Rafael from Opal maintainers.'), and the two patches can be applied cleanly. I guess you may try to apply the two patches against for-4.15/block, which doesn't include the patchset of '[PATCH V10 0/8] blk-mq-sched: improve sequential I/O'[1]: https://marc.info/?t=150797316600002&r=1&w=2 -- Ming