linux-kernel - Re: [External Mail]Re: [PATCH v3] block: move non sync requests complete flow to softirq

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a2cb0302-b333-4cea-aaea-4a7bae7024a9@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2024 10:22:27 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: 章辉 <zhanghui31@...omi.com>,
 "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [External Mail]Re: [PATCH v3] block: move non sync requests
 complete flow to softirq

On 9/3/24 8:35 PM, 章辉 wrote:
> Does set rq_affinity to 2 mean QUEUE_FLAG_SAME_COMP?

 From block/blk-sysfs.c:

	if (val == 2) {
		blk_queue_flag_set(QUEUE_FLAG_SAME_COMP, q);
		blk_queue_flag_set(QUEUE_FLAG_SAME_FORCE, q);
	}

> This seems to determine on which core the current request is
> completed, rather than in the interrupt top or bottom half?

That's correct. I suggested this because I was wondering whether
spreading the I/O completion workload over more CPU cores would help?

Thanks,

Bart.