[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAB0TPYEbHeTqd2ZrOyMSMbV+g7r0HMTt2GSpUrRZxM8XsNPi3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 21:08:36 +0200
From: Martijn Coenen <maco@...roid.com>
To: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
Cc: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, kernel-team@...roid.com,
Narayan Kamath <narayan@...gle.com>,
Dario Freni <dariofreni@...gle.com>,
Nikita Ioffe <ioffe@...gle.com>,
Jiyong Park <jiyong@...gle.com>,
Martijn Coenen <maco@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: loop: Avoid calling blk_mq_freeze_queue() when possible.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 6:34 PM Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com> wrote:
> If nothing will change, why does the userspace bother to send
> SET_STATUS?
We don't change transfer, but we do change the offset and sizelimit.
In our specific case, we know there won't be any I/O from userspace at
this point; so from that point of view the freeze wouldn't be
necessary. But I'm not sure how we can make loop aware of that in a
safe way. Ideally we'd just have a way of completely configuring a
loop device before starting the block request queue, but that seems
like a pretty big change.
Martijn
>
>
> Thanks,
> Ming Lei
Powered by blists - more mailing lists