From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] blk-mq: remove RQF_ELVPRIV
Date: Thu, 18 May 2023 19:39:04 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a849d530-a975-9b63-702a-6c29c8f54bee@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZGYmK/y/TXuYk3tN@ovpn-8-21.pek2.redhat.com>
On 5/18/23 7:20 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 03:06:32PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 03:11:12PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>> - if ((rq->rq_flags & RQF_ELVPRIV) && e->type->ops.requeue_request)
>>>> + if (e->type->ops.requeue_request)
>>>> e->type->ops.requeue_request(rq);
>>>
>>> The above actually changes current behavior since RQF_ELVPRIV is only set
>>> iff the following condition is true:
>>>
>>> (rq->rq_flags & RQF_ELV) && !op_is_flush(rq->cmd_flags) &&
>>> e->type->ops.prepare_request.
>>
>> It would require an I/O scheduler that implements .requeue_request but
>> not .prepare_request, which doesn't exist and also is rather pointless as
>> this .requeue_request method would never get called in the current code.
>>
>> So no, no behavior change in practice.
>
> Fair enough, just found that all three schedulers have implemented
> e->type->ops.prepare_request.
We should probably make this requirement explicit though, seems
very fragile to depend on it just because it's the status quo.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-19 1:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-18 5:30 keep passthrough request out of the I/O schedulers Christoph Hellwig
2023-05-18 5:30 ` [PATCH 1/3] blk-mq: don't queue plugged passthrough requests into scheduler Christoph Hellwig
2023-05-18 17:50 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-05-19 1:41 ` Jens Axboe
2023-05-18 5:31 ` [PATCH 2/3] blk-mq: remove RQF_ELVPRIV Christoph Hellwig
2023-05-18 7:05 ` Ming Lei
2023-05-18 7:11 ` Ming Lei
2023-05-18 13:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-05-18 13:20 ` Ming Lei
2023-05-19 1:39 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2023-05-18 17:52 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-05-18 5:31 ` [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: make sure elevator callbacks aren't called for passthrough request Christoph Hellwig
2023-05-18 13:23 ` Ming Lei
2023-05-18 17:58 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-05-19 1:39 ` keep passthrough request out of the I/O schedulers Jens Axboe
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=a849d530-a975-9b63-702a-6c29c8f54bee@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).