From: hch@infradead.org (Christoph Hellwig)
Subject: [PATCH 6/7] block: make blk_poll() take a parameter on whether to spin or not
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2018 00:05:44 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181119080544.GF9622@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181117214354.822-7-axboe@kernel.dk>
> -bool blk_poll(struct request_queue *q, blk_qc_t cookie)
> +bool blk_poll(struct request_queue *q, blk_qc_t cookie, bool spin)
I find the paramter name a little confusing. Maybe wait_for_request,
although I don't particularly like that one either. But we really need
to document the parameter well here, no matter what we end up naming
it. And we should use a consistent name through the whole stack.
> index c1ec3475a140..f6971b45bc54 100644
> --- a/drivers/nvme/target/io-cmd-bdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/nvme/target/io-cmd-bdev.c
> @@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ static void nvmet_bdev_execute_rw(struct nvmet_req *req)
>
> cookie = submit_bio(bio);
>
> - blk_poll(bdev_get_queue(req->ns->bdev), cookie);
> + blk_poll(bdev_get_queue(req->ns->bdev), cookie, true);
This opportunistic poll is pretty bogus now as we never set the HIPRI
flag and it should probably be removed in a prep patch. We should then
later try to use a scheme similar to your aio polling for the nvme
target as well.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-19 8:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-17 21:43 [PATCHSET v4] Various block optimizations Jens Axboe
2018-11-17 21:43 ` [PATCH 1/7] block: avoid ordered task state change for polled IO Jens Axboe
2018-11-19 7:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-17 21:43 ` [PATCH 2/7] block: have ->poll_fn() return number of entries polled Jens Axboe
2018-11-19 7:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-25 10:52 ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-11-25 13:41 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-27 10:10 ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-11-27 15:20 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-17 21:43 ` [PATCH 3/7] nvme-fc: remove unused poll implementation Jens Axboe
2018-11-19 7:59 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-19 15:19 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-19 19:00 ` James Smart
2018-11-17 21:43 ` [PATCH 4/7] blk-mq: when polling for IO, look for any completion Jens Axboe
2018-11-19 8:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-19 15:20 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-17 21:43 ` [PATCH 5/7] blk-mq: remove 'tag' parameter from mq_ops->poll() Jens Axboe
2018-11-19 8:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-17 21:43 ` [PATCH 6/7] block: make blk_poll() take a parameter on whether to spin or not Jens Axboe
2018-11-19 8:05 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2018-11-19 15:21 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-20 9:11 ` Sagi Grimberg
2018-11-17 21:43 ` [PATCH 7/7] blk-mq: ensure mq_ops ->poll() is entered at least once Jens Axboe
2018-11-19 8:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
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=20181119080544.GF9622@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).