Re: [PATCH v5 5/9] block: Change the runtime power management approach (1/2)

Bart Van Assche
2018-08-09T17:12:43Z

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-7", Size: 1053 bytes --]

On Thu, 2018-08-09 at 10:52 +-0800, Ming Lei wrote:
+AD4- On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 05:28:43PM +-0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
+AD4- +AD4- Some but not all blk+AF8-queue+AF8-enter() calls are related to=
request allocation so
+AD4-=20
+AD4- The only one I remember is scsi+AF8-ioctl+AF8-reset(), in which scsi+=
AF8-autopm+AF8-get+AF8-host()
+AD4- is called before allocating this request, that means it is enough to =
put
+AD4- host up for handling RESET. Also this request shouldn't have entered =
the block
+AD4- request queue.
+AD4-=20
+AD4- Or are there other cases in which request allocation isn't related wi=
th
+AD4- blk+AF8-queue+AF8-enter()?

What I was referring to in my e-mail is the q+AF8-usage+AF8-counter manipul=
ations
in blk+AF8-mq+AF8-timeout+AF8-work(). However, blk+AF8-mq+AF8-timeout+AF8-w=
ork() manipulates that
counter directly. So it's only the blk+AF8-queue+AF8-exit() call in that fu=
nction
that is not related to request allocation. All blk+AF8-queue+AF8-enter() ca=
lls I
know of are related to request allocation.

Bart.