From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] block: Micro-optimize blk_req_needs_zone_write_lock()
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2023 07:44:46 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230428054446.GC8549@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230424203329.2369688-3-bvanassche@acm.org>
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 01:33:22PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> @@ -367,8 +367,9 @@ static inline void blk_mq_clear_mq_map(struct blk_mq_queue_map *qmap)
> static inline struct blk_plug *blk_mq_plug( struct bio *bio)
> {
> /* Zoned block device write operation case: do not plug the BIO */
> - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ZONED) &&
> - bdev_op_is_zoned_write(bio->bi_bdev, bio_op(bio)))
> + if ((bio_op(bio) == REQ_OP_WRITE ||
> + bio_op(bio) == REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES) &&
> + disk_zone_is_seq(bio->bi_bdev->bd_disk, bio->bi_iter.bi_sector))
> return NULL;
I find this a bit hard to hard to read. Why not:
if (disk_zone_is_seq(bio->bi_bdev->bd_disk, bio->bi_iter.bi_sector)) {
/*
* Do not plug for writes that require zone locking.
*/
if (bio_op(bio) == REQ_OP_WRITE ||
bio_op(bio) == REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES)
return NULL;
}
> bool blk_req_needs_zone_write_lock(struct request *rq)
> {
> - if (!rq->q->disk->seq_zones_wlock)
> - return false;
> -
> - if (bdev_op_is_zoned_write(rq->q->disk->part0, req_op(rq)))
> - return blk_rq_zone_is_seq(rq);
> -
> - return false;
> + return rq->q->disk->seq_zones_wlock &&
> + (req_op(rq) == REQ_OP_WRITE ||
> + req_op(rq) == REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES) &&
> + blk_rq_zone_is_seq(rq);
Similaly here. The old version did flow much better, so I'd prefer
something like:
if (!rq->q->disk->seq_zones_wlock || !blk_rq_zone_is_seq(rq))
return false;
return req_op(rq) == REQ_OP_WRITE || req_op(rq) == REQ_OP_WRITE_ZEROES);
I also wonder if the check that and op is write or write zeroes, that
is needs zone locking would be useful instead of dupliating it all
over. That is instead of removing bdev_op_is_zoned_write
keep a op_is_zoned_write without the bdev_is_zoned check.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-28 5:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-24 20:33 [PATCH v3 0/9] mq-deadline: Improve support for zoned block devices Bart Van Assche
2023-04-24 20:33 ` [PATCH v3 1/9] block: Simplify blk_req_needs_zone_write_lock() Bart Van Assche
2023-04-24 20:33 ` [PATCH v3 2/9] block: Micro-optimize blk_req_needs_zone_write_lock() Bart Van Assche
2023-04-28 5:44 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2023-04-28 19:46 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-05-01 4:34 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-04-24 20:33 ` [PATCH v3 3/9] block: Introduce blk_rq_is_seq_zoned_write() Bart Van Assche
2023-04-28 5:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-04-28 19:59 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-04-24 20:33 ` [PATCH v3 4/9] block: mq-deadline: Clean up deadline_check_fifo() Bart Van Assche
2023-04-28 5:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-04-24 20:33 ` [PATCH v3 5/9] block: mq-deadline: Simplify deadline_skip_seq_writes() Bart Van Assche
2023-04-28 5:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-04-24 20:33 ` [PATCH v3 6/9] block: mq-deadline: Improve deadline_skip_seq_writes() Bart Van Assche
2023-04-28 5:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-04-24 20:33 ` [PATCH v3 7/9] block: mq-deadline: Track the dispatch position Bart Van Assche
2023-04-28 5:50 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-04-28 17:04 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-04-28 20:04 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-05-01 4:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-04-24 20:33 ` [PATCH v3 8/9] block: mq-deadline: Handle requeued requests correctly Bart Van Assche
2023-04-28 5:54 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-04-28 17:03 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-05-01 4:37 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-04-24 20:33 ` [PATCH v3 9/9] block: mq-deadline: Fix handling of at-head zoned writes Bart Van Assche
2023-04-28 5:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
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=20230428054446.GC8549@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com \
--cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).