linux-block.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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



  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).