From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: "Mohamed Abuelfotoh, Hazem" <abuehaze@amazon.com>,
"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: use plug request list tail for one-shot backmerge attempt
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 22:22:43 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aEpkIxvuTWgY5BnO@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f4ed489d-af31-4ca0-bfc1-a340034c61f5@kernel.dk>
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 11:53:07AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> Yes we can't revert it, and honestly I would not want to even if that
> was an option. If the multi-queue case is particularly important, you
> could just do something ala the below - keep scanning until you a merge
> _could_ have happened but didn't. Ideally we'd want to iterate the plug
> list backwards and then we could keep the same single shot logic, where
> you only attempt one request that has a matching queue. And obviously we
> could just doubly link the requests, there's space in the request
> linkage code to do that. But that'd add overhead in general, I think
> it's better to shove a bit of that overhead to the multi-queue case.
Maybe byte the bullet and just make the request lists doubly linked?
Unlike the bio memory usage for request should not be quite as
critical. Right now in my config the las cacheline in struct request
only has a single 8 byte field anyway, so in practive we won't even
bloat it.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-12 5:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-11 14:53 [PATCH] block: use plug request list tail for one-shot backmerge attempt Jens Axboe
2025-06-11 16:55 ` Mohamed Abuelfotoh, Hazem
2025-06-11 17:53 ` Jens Axboe
2025-06-12 5:22 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2025-06-12 5:23 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-12 11:49 ` Jens Axboe
2025-06-12 11:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-12 12:21 ` Jens Axboe
2025-06-12 12:23 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-12 12:28 ` Jens Axboe
2025-06-16 13:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-16 16:01 ` Caleb Sander Mateos
2025-06-17 2:36 ` Ming Lei
2025-06-17 4:39 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-18 6:04 ` Hannes Reinecke
2025-06-12 12:27 ` Mohamed Abuelfotoh, Hazem
2025-06-24 10:45 ` Mohamed Abuelfotoh, Hazem
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=aEpkIxvuTWgY5BnO@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=abuehaze@amazon.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
/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