From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: "jianchao.wang" <jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com>
Cc: ming.lei@redhat.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V9 3/4] blk-mq: issue directly with bypass 'false' in blk_mq_sched_insert_requests
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2018 19:13:03 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e25a0ba3-356a-35d9-e22b-63ba124f555a@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b57bbedf-bc7e-7b8d-2217-3e8628ab657c@oracle.com>
On 12/5/18 6:11 PM, jianchao.wang wrote:
>> And why aren't we just using the list_empty() check like before, and not
>> having to add the inval cookie value?
>
> Because we use 'bypass == false' here, so blk_mq_try_issue_directly
> will take over the request totally, so the request will always be
> removed from the list and finally, the list must be empty.
>
> There is another way to identify the result of blk_mq_try_issue_directly.
> Currently,
> for the 'bypass == true' case,
> it always return BLK_STS_OK,
> for the 'bypass == false' case,
> it return the actual result, except for 'force == true' case
> where the request has to be inserted into hctx dispatch list
> and return a BLK_STS_OK.
>
> We could let the 'bypass == true' case also return the actual result to
> show what has been done in the blk_mq_try_issue_directly and thus we could
> get the actual result of the last request.
>
> Would you mind we handle it like this ?
I like that, sounds better than adding a new qc type.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-06 2:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-05 7:43 [PATCH V9 0/4] blk-mq: refactor code of issue directly Jianchao Wang
2018-12-05 7:43 ` [PATCH V9 1/4] blk-mq: insert to hctx dispatch list when bypass_insert is true Jianchao Wang
2018-12-05 16:25 ` Jens Axboe
2018-12-06 1:12 ` jianchao.wang
2018-12-05 7:44 ` [PATCH V9 2/4] blk-mq: refactor the code of issue request directly Jianchao Wang
2018-12-05 16:27 ` Jens Axboe
2018-12-06 1:12 ` jianchao.wang
2018-12-05 7:44 ` [PATCH V9 3/4] blk-mq: issue directly with bypass 'false' in blk_mq_sched_insert_requests Jianchao Wang
2018-12-05 16:30 ` Jens Axboe
2018-12-06 1:11 ` jianchao.wang
2018-12-06 2:13 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2018-12-05 7:44 ` [PATCH V9 4/4] blk-mq: replace and kill blk_mq_request_issue_directly Jianchao Wang
2018-12-05 16:30 ` Jens Axboe
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=e25a0ba3-356a-35d9-e22b-63ba124f555a@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=jianchao.w.wang@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®