From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: chengming.zhou@linux.dev
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, hch@lst.de, ming.lei@redhat.com,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
zhouchengming@bytedance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] blk-flush: don't need to end rq twice for non post-flush requests
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 15:33:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230710133308.GB23157@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230710064705.1847287-2-chengming.zhou@linux.dev>
On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 02:47:05PM +0800, chengming.zhou@linux.dev wrote:
> From: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>
>
> Now we unconditionally blk_rq_init_flush() to replace rq->end_io to
> make rq return twice back to the flush state machine for post-flush.
>
> Obviously, non post-flush requests don't need it, they don't need to
> end request twice, so they don't need to replace rq->end_io callback.
> And the same for requests with the FUA bit on hardware with FUA support.
>
> So we move blk_rq_init_flush() to REQ_FSEQ_DATA stage and only replace
> rq->end_io if it needs post-flush. Otherwise, it can end like normal
> request and doesn't need to return back to the flush state machine.
I really like the idea behind this optimization, but I kinda hate
adding more magic to the already way too magic flush sequence.
I wonder if a better idea would be to kill the flush sequence entirely,
and just split the flush_queue into a preflush and a postflush queue.
This would remove a field from struct request and lead to more readable
code as well.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-10 13:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-10 6:47 [PATCH 1/2] blk-flush: fix rq->flush.seq for " chengming.zhou
2023-07-10 6:47 ` [PATCH 2/2] blk-flush: don't need to end rq twice for non " chengming.zhou
2023-07-10 13:33 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2023-07-25 13:15 ` Chengming Zhou
2023-07-10 13:30 ` [PATCH 1/2] blk-flush: fix rq->flush.seq for " Christoph Hellwig
2023-07-11 11:06 ` Chengming Zhou
2023-07-11 11:15 ` [External] " Chengming Zhou
2023-07-11 11:31 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-07-11 11:52 ` Chengming Zhou
2023-07-11 12:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20230710133308.GB23157@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=chengming.zhou@linux.dev \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=zhouchengming@bytedance.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome