[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200820061927.GA6447@lst.de>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 08:19:27 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: mingo@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, will@...nel.org, paulmck@...nel.org,
hch@....de, axboe@...nel.dk, chris@...is-wilson.co.uk,
davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, fweisbec@...il.com,
oleg@...hat.com, vincent.guittot@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 08/10] smp,irq_work: Use the new irq_work API
On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 12:51:10PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> if (blk_mq_complete_need_ipi(rq)) {
> - INIT_CSD(&rq->csd, __blk_mq_complete_request_remote, rq);
> - smp_call_function_single_async(rq->mq_ctx->cpu, &rq->csd);
> + rq->work = IRQ_WORK_INIT_HARD(__blk_mq_complete_request_remote);
> + irq_work_queue_remote_static(rq->mq_ctx->cpu, &rq->work);
So given the caller synchronization / use once semantics does it even
make sense to split the init vs call part here? What about:
irq_work_queue_remote_static(&rq->work, rq->mq_ctx->cpu,
__blk_mq_complete_request_remote);
instead? And btw, I'm not sure what the "static" stand for. Maybe
irq_work_queue_remote_once?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists