From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755778Ab3ANDNq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:13:46 -0500
Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:54051 "EHLO mga14.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755136Ab3ANDNo (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 13 Jan 2013 22:13:44 -0500
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,465,1355126400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="243412551"
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:14:23 +0800
From: Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@intel.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>,
        James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
        linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Aaron Lu <aaron.lwe@gmail.com>,
        Shane Huang <shane.huang@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 0/4] block layer runtime pm
Message-ID: <20130114031422.GB15280@aaronlu.sh.intel.com>
References: <50EBCBC3.4070606@intel.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1301081024300.1535-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1301081024300.1535-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 10:27:54AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, Aaron Lu wrote:
> 
> > So this also reminds me that as long as CONFIG_PM_RUNTIME is selected,
> > the blk_pm_add/put/peek_request functions will be in the block IO path.
> > Shall we introduce a new config option to selectively build block
> > runtime PM functionality? something like CONFIG_BLK_PM_RUNTIME perhaps?
> > 
> > Just some condition checks in those functions, not sure if it is worth a
> > new config though. Please suggest, thanks.
> 
> I don't think it is needed.  The new routines will be very quick when 
> blk_pm_runtime_init() hasn't been called, once you add back the checks 
> for the queue's device.

Is it necessary to also add the q->dev check in the following case?

static void blk_pm_requeue_request(struct request *rq)
{
	if (rq->q->dev && !(rq->cmd_flags & REQ_PM))
		rq->q->nr_pending--;
}

So that we do not have a meanlingless value of nr_pending for those
drivers that don't use block runtime PM, and this also has the benefit
of making those drivers return early.

Thanks,
Aaron