[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5511fa8a-b59b-a127-15ae-50425740ba52@huaweicloud.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 09:01:16 +0800
From: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...weicloud.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: dwagner@...e.de, hare@...e.de, ming.lei@...hat.com,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
john.garry@...wei.com, jack@...e.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/14] blk-mq: make blk_mq_commit_rqs a general
function for all commits
on 1/17/2023 12:13 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/16/23 9:09 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 09:07:00AM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>>>>> Why? I think always having the trace even for the commit case seems
>>>>> very useful for making the traces useful.
>>>> I think unplug event more likely means that request going to be sent to driver
>>>> was plugged and in plug list. And the current code do only trace unplug event
>>>> when dispatching requests from plug list. If so, would it be better to add
>>>> a new event to trace commit?
>>> Hi Christoph, which way do you prefer now? Keep unplug event consistent to
>>> trace commit of requests from plug list only or trace all commits with
>>> unplug event. Please let me know and I will consider it in next version.
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> To me always having the trace feels more useful, but let's see if Jens
>> has an opinion on it.
>
> Agree, that is probably the saner option.
>
Thanks for replies, I will trace all commits with unplug event in next version.
--
Best wishes
Kemeng Shi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists