From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] scsi: ufs: Enable the BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING flag
Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 12:57:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2d37028b-c7a1-f2ac-abb5-e85c00aceba2@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cac55dea-ec77-2802-f975-89a1cb1c734f@intel.com>
On 5/23/23 12:19, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 23/05/23 20:10, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> The overhead of BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING is small relative to the time required to
>> queue a UFS command so I think enabling BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING for all UFS host
>> controllers is fine.
>
> Doesn't it also force the queue to be run asynchronously always?
>
> But in any case, it doesn't seem like something to force on drivers
> just because it would take a bit more coding to make it optional.
Making BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING optional would complicate testing of the UFS
driver. Although it is possible to make BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING optional, I'm
wondering whether it is worth it? I haven't noticed any performance
difference in my tests with BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING enabled compared to
BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING disabled.
Thanks,
Bart.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-23 19:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-17 22:23 [PATCH v2 0/4] ufs: Do not requeue while ungating the clock Bart Van Assche
2023-05-17 22:23 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] scsi: core: Rework scsi_host_block() Bart Van Assche
2023-05-17 23:59 ` Ming Lei
2023-05-17 22:23 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] scsi: core: Support setting BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING Bart Van Assche
2023-05-17 22:23 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] scsi: ufs: Enable the BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING flag Bart Van Assche
2023-05-23 16:39 ` Adrian Hunter
2023-05-23 17:10 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-05-23 19:19 ` Adrian Hunter
2023-05-23 19:57 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2023-05-24 5:55 ` Adrian Hunter
2023-05-25 21:16 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-05-26 7:11 ` Adrian Hunter
2023-05-26 17:27 ` Bart Van Assche
2023-05-29 6:20 ` Adrian Hunter
2023-05-17 22:23 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] scsi: ufs: Ungate the clock synchronously Bart Van Assche
2023-05-22 19:33 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] ufs: Do not requeue while ungating the clock Bart Van Assche
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=2d37028b-c7a1-f2ac-abb5-e85c00aceba2@acm.org \
--to=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.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).