Currently, blk-mq protects only the issue path with RCU. This patch
puts the completion path under the same RCU protection. This will be
used to synchronize issue/completion against timeout by later patches,
which will also add the comments.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo
---
block/blk-mq.c | 5
On 1/9/18 9:19 AM, t...@kernel.org wrote:
> Hello, Bart.
>
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 04:12:40PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>> I'm concerned about the additional CPU cycles needed for the new
>> blk_mq_map_queue()
>> call, although I know this call is cheap. Would the timeout code really get
>
Hello, Bart.
On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 04:12:40PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> I'm concerned about the additional CPU cycles needed for the new
> blk_mq_map_queue()
> call, although I know this call is cheap. Would the timeout code really get
> that
So, if that is really a concern, let's cache
On 1/9/18 9:12 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 11:15 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Currently, blk-mq protects only the issue path with RCU. This patch
>> puts the completion path under the same RCU protection. This will be
>> used to synchronize issue/completion against timeout by
On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 11:15 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Currently, blk-mq protects only the issue path with RCU. This patch
> puts the completion path under the same RCU protection. This will be
> used to synchronize issue/completion against timeout by later patches,
> which will also add the comme
On 1/9/18 12:08 AM, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 01/08/2018 08:15 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Currently, blk-mq protects only the issue path with RCU. This patch
>> puts the completion path under the same RCU protection. This will be
>> used to synchronize issue/completion against timeout by later pat
On 01/08/2018 08:15 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Currently, blk-mq protects only the issue path with RCU. This patch
> puts the completion path under the same RCU protection. This will be
> used to synchronize issue/completion against timeout by later patches,
> which will also add the comments.
>
> S
On 01/09/18 00:27, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> On 01/08/18 23:55, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> the good old
>>
>> int srcu_idx = srcu_idx;
>>
>> should get the job done.
>
> (Narrator: It didn't.)
Narrator: we retract our previous statement and apologize for the
confusion. It works fine when you correctly
On 01/08/18 23:55, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/8/18 1:15 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 1/8/18 12:57 PM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>>> On 01/08/18 20:15, Tejun Heo wrote:
Currently, blk-mq protects only the issue path with RCU. This patch
puts the completion path under the same RCU protection.
On 1/8/18 1:15 PM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/8/18 12:57 PM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>> On 01/08/18 20:15, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> Currently, blk-mq protects only the issue path with RCU. This patch
>>> puts the completion path under the same RCU protection. This will be
>>> used to synchronize issue
On 1/8/18 12:57 PM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> On 01/08/18 20:15, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> Currently, blk-mq protects only the issue path with RCU. This patch
>> puts the completion path under the same RCU protection. This will be
>> used to synchronize issue/completion against timeout by later patche
On 01/08/18 20:15, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Currently, blk-mq protects only the issue path with RCU. This patch
> puts the completion path under the same RCU protection. This will be
> used to synchronize issue/completion against timeout by later patches,
> which will also add the comments.
>
> Signed
Currently, blk-mq protects only the issue path with RCU. This patch
puts the completion path under the same RCU protection. This will be
used to synchronize issue/completion against timeout by later patches,
which will also add the comments.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo
---
block/blk-mq.c | 5
13 matches
Mail list logo
