[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b2bcbb76-af6f-7660-2bc3-9796338cccff@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 20:16:20 -0700
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Jianchao Wang <jianchao.w.wang@...cle.com>
Cc: ming.lei@...hat.com, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V11 0/4] blk-mq: refactor code of issue directly
On 12/6/18 8:09 PM, Jianchao Wang wrote:
> Hi Jens
>
> Please consider this patchset for 4.21.
>
> It refactors the code of issue request directly to unify the interface
> and make the code clearer and more readable.
>
> This patch set is rebased on the recent for-4.21/block and add the 1st
> patch which inserts the non-read-write request to hctx dispatch
> list to avoid to involve merge and io scheduler when bypass_insert
> is true, otherwise, inserting is ignored, BLK_STS_RESOURCE is returned
> and the caller will fail forever.
>
> The 2nd patch refactors the code of issue request directly to unify the
> helper interface which could handle all the cases.
>
> The 3rd patch make blk_mq_sched_insert_requests issue requests directly
> with 'bypass' false, then it needn't to handle the non-issued requests
> any more.
>
> The 4th patch replace and kill the blk_mq_request_issue_directly.
Sorry to keep iterating on this, but let's default to inserting to
the dispatch list if we ever see busy from a direct dispatch. I'm fine
with doing that for 4.21, as suggested by Ming, I just didn't want to
fiddle with it for 4.20. This will prevent any merging on the request
going forward, which I think is a much safer default.
You do this already for some cases. Let's do it unconditionally for
a request that was ever subjected to ->queue_rq() and we didn't either
error or finish after the fact.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists