Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] Move usages of struct __call_single_data to call_single_data_t

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

On 8/30/23 4:29 PM, Leonardo Br?s wrote:
> On Tue, 2023-08-29 at 10:29 +0800, Chengming Zhou wrote:
>> On 2023/8/29 08:55, Leonardo Br?s wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2023-07-04 at 04:22 -0300, Leonardo Br?s wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2023-06-13 at 00:51 -0300, Leonardo Bras Soares Passos wrote:
>>>>> Friendly ping
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 2:30?AM Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changes since RFCv1:
>>>>>> - request->csd moved to the middle of the struct, without size impact
>>>>>> - type change happens in a different patch (thanks Jens Axboe!)
>>>>>> - Improved the third patch to also update the .h file.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Leonardo Bras (3):
>>>>>>   blk-mq: Move csd inside struct request so it's 32-byte aligned
>>>>>>   blk-mq: Change request->csd type to call_single_data_t
>>>>>>   smp: Change signatures to use call_single_data_t
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  include/linux/blk-mq.h | 10 +++++-----
>>>>>>  include/linux/smp.h    |  2 +-
>>>>>>  kernel/smp.c           |  4 ++--
>>>>>>  kernel/up.c            |  2 +-
>>>>>>  4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 2.40.1
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello Jens,
>>>>
>>>> I still want your feedback on this series :)
>>>>
>>>> I think I addressed every issue of RFCv1, but if you have any other feedback,
>>>> please let me know.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Leo
>>>
>>> Hello Jens Axboe,
>>>
>>> Please provide feedback on this series!
>>>
>>> Are you ok with those changes?
>>> What's your opinion on them? 
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Leo
>>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> FYI, there is no csd in struct request anymore in block/for-next branch,
>> which is deleted by this commit:
>>
>> commit 660e802c76c89e871c29cd3174c07c8d23e39c35
>> Author: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
>> Date:   Mon Jul 17 12:00:55 2023 +0800
>>
>>     blk-mq: use percpu csd to remote complete instead of per-rq csd
>>
>>     If request need to be completed remotely, we insert it into percpu llist,
>>     and smp_call_function_single_async() if llist is empty previously.
>>
>>     We don't need to use per-rq csd, percpu csd is enough. And the size of
>>     struct request is decreased by 24 bytes.
>>
>>     This way is cleaner, and looks correct, given block softirq is guaranteed
>>     to be scheduled to consume the list if one new request is added to this
>>     percpu list, either smp_call_function_single_async() returns -EBUSY or 0.
>>
>>     Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
>>     Reviewed-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
>>     Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
>>     Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230717040058.3993930-2-chengming.zhou@linux.dev
>>     Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
>>
> 
> 
> Oh, thanks for the heads-up!
> I will send reviewed version of patch 3.
> 
> I suppose it can go on top of block/for-next, since the above patch is there.
> Does that work for you Jens Axboe?

Just send it against Linus's tree, it's all upstream now.

-- 
Jens Axboe