From: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] blk-mq: make sure elevator callbacks aren't called for passthrough request
Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 12:13:04 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZGUZMATdnt8hFM+A@kbusch-mbp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZGRJaLSx6hToubQ7@ovpn-8-19.pek2.redhat.com>
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:26:32AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 08:47:46AM -0600, Keith Busch wrote:
>
> > And the passthrough case is special with users of that interface taking
> > on a greater responsibility and generally want the kernel out of the
> > way. I don't think anyone would purposefully run a tag intense workload
> > through that engine at the same time as using a generic one with the
> > scheduler. It definitely should still work, but it doesn't need to be
> > fair, right?
>
> I guess it may work, but question is that what we can get from this kind
> of big change? And I think this approach may be one following work if it is
> proved as useful.
I'm just trying to remove any need for side channels to bypass block
layer functionality, like this one:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2023-April/039522.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-17 18:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-15 14:45 [PATCH V2 0/2] blk-mq: handle passthrough request as really passthrough Ming Lei
2023-05-15 14:46 ` [PATCH V2 1/2] blk-mq: don't queue plugged passthrough requests into scheduler Ming Lei
2023-05-16 6:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-05-16 8:10 ` Ming Lei
2023-05-17 7:20 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-05-15 14:46 ` [PATCH V2 2/2] blk-mq: make sure elevator callbacks aren't called for passthrough request Ming Lei
2023-05-15 15:52 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-05-15 20:22 ` Keith Busch
2023-05-16 1:20 ` Ming Lei
2023-05-16 6:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-05-16 8:39 ` Ming Lei
2023-05-17 7:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-05-17 8:58 ` Ming Lei
2023-05-16 14:47 ` Keith Busch
2023-05-17 3:26 ` Ming Lei
2023-05-17 18:13 ` Keith Busch [this message]
2023-05-18 1:22 ` Ming Lei
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=ZGUZMATdnt8hFM+A@kbusch-mbp \
--to=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--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