From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 009.lax.mailroute.net (009.lax.mailroute.net [199.89.1.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7998B1CEAC7; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 13:50:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.12 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732629004; cv=none; b=fg3oY5rO8LcN+pNp4px82vGcwuWrqdkgj525Lo09Z+aljdSOUn+PVewdNE/DXKu1KwCeUCvAaopAiZjMQS4wpaHucnJFVMKuWxWifpovwKODdAASkdRaaQliyUzVwUkssyu30rPcurdcutGIbtRQwCH9APhyJADGvX920fVKzCw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1732629004; c=relaxed/simple; bh=LDHKlvSWEbzHB5vUhCPiMjAvRh/HoM1F8Ra5jPRv8G4=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=NF2L4PReZEF/rKEKKIw5Xbbkfje38cqsS5nqmTPmWZG/VCsJ3XNIdUwL06/orIrwBedifso9CMT5Nlk/BH4NygEfYPqKg5Bp8PzYp2acg/1DctfX3EvmVoMI6HYGbaaUsyAMMWU+IUmRXEZ7YJKvrjnLqTOrfEmSfK/Zhx6nY9M= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b=OJjBfNEB; arc=none smtp.client-ip=199.89.1.12 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=acm.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=acm.org header.i=@acm.org header.b="OJjBfNEB" Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by 009.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4XyP8T6K1QzlgVXv; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 13:50:01 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=acm.org; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:in-reply-to :from:from:content-language:references:subject:subject :user-agent:mime-version:date:date:message-id:received:received; s=mr01; t=1732628997; x=1735220998; bh=LDHKlvSWEbzHB5vUhCPiMjAv Rh/HoM1F8Ra5jPRv8G4=; b=OJjBfNEBslumokxQFw1dfLQb8NXjU+aVp+D3qSML YB64gfylUqbxQkDErbzUNySWz6Dun0eCXO9c5nfPCyxj5g03th/gV1rsBdS0dPZZ YGSRKJDN7YkWgMG2scpW0LdXb9oEPQJDOOifKr17r1NalOHGVZUO9I37VEhroaIL bRoGb1M8Z60+EwvkcMRrUA/fRuHAg3z4lXgYX0QqPOsZuccUpKG20gu13euudLz2 D1CUMC9jVdGqdI1cDv4ggffGjcDdxkN3D5RrpRcp2msZsVym0v718+2ueRDLJac+ U2F6e5SS75jZjRtj+t6Js3dD8vTNKpyolgB24iw3j4hTDA== X-Virus-Scanned: by MailRoute Received: from 009.lax.mailroute.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (009.lax [127.0.0.1]) (mroute_mailscanner, port 10029) with LMTP id YunbblsNHGzo; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 13:49:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.51.14] (c-73-231-117-72.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [73.231.117.72]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: bvanassche@acm.org) by 009.lax.mailroute.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4XyP8K3vpBzlgTWG; Tue, 26 Nov 2024 13:49:53 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 05:49:50 -0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: Don't wait for completion of in-flight requests To: John Garry , Qiang Ma , James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com, axboe@kernel.dk, dwagner@suse.de, ming.lei@redhat.com, hare@suse.de Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20241126115008.31272-1-maqianga@uniontech.com> <7c95b86b-68a0-41f8-a09c-3cb4b06fe61a@oracle.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Bart Van Assche In-Reply-To: <7c95b86b-68a0-41f8-a09c-3cb4b06fe61a@oracle.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 11/26/24 4:21 AM, John Garry wrote: > On 26/11/2024 11:50, Qiang Ma wrote: >> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c >> index adee6f60c966..0a2d5d9327fc 100644 >> --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c >> +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c >> @@ -2065,7 +2065,7 @@ int scsi_mq_setup_tags(struct Scsi_Host *shost) >> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 tag_set->queue_depth =3D shost->can_que= ue; >> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 tag_set->cmd_size =3D cmd_size; >> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 tag_set->numa_node =3D dev_to_node(shos= t->dma_dev); >> -=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 tag_set->flags =3D BLK_MQ_F_SHOULD_MERGE; >> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 tag_set->flags =3D BLK_MQ_F_SHOULD_MERGE | BLK_MQ_= F_STACKING; >=20 > This should not be set for all SCSI hosts. Some SCSI hosts rely on=20 > bf0beec0607d. Are there any SCSI hosts for which it is safe to set this flag? To me the above change looks like a hack that should not be merged at all. Did I perhaps overlook something? Thanks, Bart.