Re: [PATCH v2] block/mq-deadline: adjust the timeout period of the per_prio->dispatch

[Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>]

On 10/9/25 1:21 PM, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> There is still something bothering me with this: the request is added to the
> dispatch list, and *NOT* to the fifo/sort list. So this should be considered as
> a scheduling decision in itself, and __dd_dispatch_request() reflects that as
> the first thing it does is pick the requests that are in the dispatch list
> already. However, __dd_dispatch_request() also has the check:
> 
> 		if (started_after(dd, rq, latest_start))
>                          return NULL;
> 
> for requests that are already in the dispatch list. That is what does not make
> sense to me. Why ? There is no comment describing this. And I do not understand
> why we should bother with any time for requests that are in the dispatch list
> already. These should be sent to the drive first, always.
> 
> This patch seems to be fixing a problem that is introduced by the above check.
> But why this check ? What am I missing here ?

Is my conclusion from the above correct that there is agreement that the 
I/O priority should be ignored for AT HEAD requests and that AT HEAD
requests should always be dispatched first? If so, how about merging the
three per I/O priority dispatch lists into a single dispatch list and
not to call started_after() at all for the dispatch list?

Thanks,

Bart.