From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/16] mmc: core: replace waitqueue with worker To: Jens Axboe , Linus Walleij References: <20170209153403.9730-1-linus.walleij@linaro.org> <20170209153403.9730-7-linus.walleij@linaro.org> <00989e26-cdb9-48d7-2e46-ae6ef66e59a7@intel.com> <3fc89f9f-fbcf-113d-3644-b6c9dae003f0@intel.com> <8f1f3d4c-410c-2632-c776-4ced363bdb0d@kernel.dk> Cc: "linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org" , Ulf Hansson , Paolo Valente , Chunyan Zhang , Baolin Wang , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , Arnd Bergmann From: Adrian Hunter Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 11:25:37 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8f1f3d4c-410c-2632-c776-4ced363bdb0d@kernel.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 List-ID: On 11/03/17 00:05, Jens Axboe wrote: > On 03/10/2017 07:21 AM, Adrian Hunter wrote: >>> Essentially I take out that thread and replace it with this one worker >>> introduced in this very patch. I agree the driver can block in many ways >>> and that is why I need to have it running in process context, and this >>> is what the worker introduced here provides. >> >> The last time I looked at the blk-mq I/O scheduler code, it pulled up to >> qdepth requests from the I/O scheduler and left them on a local list while >> running ->queue_rq(). That means blocking in ->queue_rq() leaves some >> number of requests in limbo (not issued but also not in the I/O scheduler) >> for that time. > > Look again, if we're not handling the requeued dispatches, we pull one > at the time from the scheduler. > That's good :-) Now the next thing ;-) It looks like we either set BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING and miss the possibility of issuing synchronous requests immediately, or we don't set BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING in which case we are never allowed to sleep in ->queue_rq(). Is that true?