From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: "jianchao.wang" <jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 1/4] blk-mq: refactor the code of issue request directly
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 17:43:44 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181114094343.GA13193@ming.t460p> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <17b51550-d45b-9861-b172-74ee0e256d98@oracle.com>
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 05:23:48PM +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
> Hi Ming
>
> On 11/14/18 5:11 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> >>
> >> - if (!blk_mq_get_dispatch_budget(hctx))
> >> - goto insert;
> >> + if (unlikely(!blk_mq_get_dispatch_budget(hctx)))
> >> + goto out_unlock;
> > The unlikely annotation is a bit misleading, since out-of-budget can
> > happen frequently in case of low queue depth, and there are lots of
> > such examples.
> >
>
> This could be good for the case for no .get_budget and getting budget success.
> In case of out-of-budget, we insert the request which is slow path.
In case of low queue depth, it is hard to say that 'insert request' is
done in slow path, cause it happens quite frequently.
I suggest to remove these two unlikely() since modern CPU's branch prediction
should work well enough.
Especially the annotation of unlikely() often means that this branch is
missed in most of times for all settings, and it is obviously not true
in this case.
thanks,
Ming
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-14 9:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-14 8:45 [PATCH V7 0/4] blk-mq: refactor and fix on issue request directly Jianchao Wang
2018-11-14 8:45 ` [PATCH V7 1/4] blk-mq: refactor the code of " Jianchao Wang
2018-11-14 9:11 ` Ming Lei
2018-11-14 9:23 ` jianchao.wang
2018-11-14 9:43 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2018-11-14 15:22 ` Jens Axboe
2018-11-15 1:35 ` jianchao.wang
2018-11-14 8:45 ` [PATCH V7 2/4] blk-mq: fix issue directly case when q is stopped or quiesced Jianchao Wang
2018-11-14 9:20 ` Ming Lei
2018-11-14 9:29 ` jianchao.wang
2018-11-14 9:35 ` Ming Lei
2018-11-15 1:37 ` jianchao.wang
2018-11-14 8:45 ` [PATCH V7 3/4] blk-mq: issue directly with bypass 'false' in blk_mq_sched_insert_requests Jianchao Wang
2018-11-14 8:45 ` [PATCH V7 4/4] blk-mq: replace and kill blk_mq_request_issue_directly Jianchao Wang
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=20181114094343.GA13193@ming.t460p \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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