From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AF54C11F65 for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 10:14:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD09561D0B for ; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 10:14:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233959AbhF3KQd (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jun 2021 06:16:33 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:30668 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229882AbhF3KQc (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jun 2021 06:16:32 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1625048043; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=sE33PaxiQVlndCHStL5H+OZPSUiiG6L+MMVETSDNJso=; b=Iz33Xs709oObCmJZobWi9xZXc25/udmbL9pmOAxuWVA5qTvIy0SU/J7Adw5NQWzwvH55UL nUlTpJYXiCwqxfyzHLflDJHskCuvhPMdytOVRM0MWkkqMy/iVAgK2U40uvvuwA6dxINDJf uxsEwGizfwnHCt0dTrvrG1X6bBgyRqU= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-89-1bQ7HDSyOgSQq9wKMoxHlg-1; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 06:14:02 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 1bQ7HDSyOgSQq9wKMoxHlg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BFB7804144; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 10:14:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from T590 (ovpn-12-133.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.133]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D786460C17; Wed, 30 Jun 2021 10:13:53 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2021 18:13:49 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Hannes Reinecke Cc: Jens Axboe , Daniel Wagner , Christoph Hellwig , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, Wen Xiong Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: don't allocate requests when all cpus in a hctx are offline Message-ID: References: <20210630100342.1100-1-hare@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210630100342.1100-1-hare@suse.de> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 12:03:42PM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote: > When all CPUs in a hctx are offline in blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx() we should > not try to allocate the request, as we'll fail later on in blk_mq_get_tag() anyway. > > Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke > --- Please see my yesterday's reply why this way isn't good: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YNrwnWfsxf8cJcoe@T590/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/YNrhXFgv%2FgEWbhbl@T590/ Thanks, Ming