From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 008.lax.mailroute.net (008.lax.mailroute.net [199.89.1.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15E0610A12; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:22:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725470553; cv=none; b=I7wlgb7vvcujzl/GLuM0qi22Oml5HNqqMz5BJ4haKjHmaVUpvbiQgjI9nweWDVbQdwTtd63UMzASi+L486T0FyUQ8M4QUaZKYcgxqJhReZ/ABxNpH357Nxrkz82bV5a+oGV7HUZFrzB4z3kFexx0jxY3JXKtxJJpzpnWugM5GWk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1725470553; c=relaxed/simple; bh=1fWeK/wGUq+HO5lGmQDjSm4+RAeKtJe20MGbANPD+qs=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Hce3HGsOPT4NyrymsCT2g5jBeHRBDzS2xJzu8omIntonkihyVHZ3h53kFX8o+hYOKfp1ZeiCdhsCc97ku3I9L/FC0XJDB4ItfrXzrxMo6pH3JT6dJI/xkDYhgXzmWIttJ7THD/xogyNXCdOshzUUeWcsJN1RL97iGAJoatXI5tI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b=Qfa07UVT; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b="Qfa07UVT" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 008.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4WzTnz4PMxz6ClbFV; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:22:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=acm.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :from:from:content-language:references:subject:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mr01; t=1725470550; x=1728062551; bh=cSCYVVMG1aNiK/Sl4MxkzGvm +M81ogG6FKFqwI8K710=; b=Qfa07UVTfrYn+lXgNP7c1pQpRKDHQoxWUPjRFz9f 5lJbFd4MHfky35MnZsoLX2Iw5i7ufMsWYYoxBFGbt6REZRuRyWswKsqbF47JPvon LR7o1wm3hwELBN37hBs6qvCE9dUPp611gQkn9+J/mwJDyjodkW+m3QgGlFOlvcKn KCuXVUCrrfAVlEU96vw+ZPUHkSS2g1loqIcwgqhlTkiGZUp2MV2cJUgC1G7y0n6D Cs5d236fsZtJ+CNgnRhLjm3wwPipQ6zcVQXSUc9eeqcANAqESpF4t5U6oB8NFz1x daeSSbD8rZg5SUirCDf54f5IeHt9wDSyZMzz/Qj59jVFXQ== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 008.lax.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (008.lax [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id d71_bAbxWk0v; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:22:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [100.66.154.22] (unknown [104.135.204.82]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bvanassche@acm.org) by 008.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4WzTnx0YcJz6CmM6d; Wed, 4 Sep 2024 17:22:28 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 10:22:27 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [External Mail]Re: [PATCH v3] block: move non sync requests complete flow to softirq To: =?UTF-8?B?56ug6L6J?= , "axboe@kernel.dk" Cc: "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" References: <20240903115437.42307-1-zhanghui31@xiaomi.com> <769fb0e4-6f55-4a2d-a0f2-e8836b790617@acm.org> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 9/3/24 8:35 PM, =E7=AB=A0=E8=BE=89 wrote: > Does set rq_affinity to 2 mean QUEUE_FLAG_SAME_COMP? From block/blk-sysfs.c: if (val =3D=3D 2) { blk_queue_flag_set(QUEUE_FLAG_SAME_COMP, q); blk_queue_flag_set(QUEUE_FLAG_SAME_FORCE, q); } > This seems to determine on which core the current request is > completed, rather than in the interrupt top or bottom half? That's correct. I suggested this because I was wondering whether spreading the I/O completion workload over more CPU cores would help? Thanks, Bart.