On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 09:42:54AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 06:40:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > There isn't one, it was meant to be used with static allocations.
> >
> > Frederic proposed changing all these to irq_work, and I think I'll go do
> > that. Firs
On 6/8/20 10:40 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 09:33:42AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 05:58:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
A request can only be completed once.
>>>
>>> Sure, but that doesn't help.
>>>
>>> CPU0
On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 06:40:09PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> There isn't one, it was meant to be used with static allocations.
>
> Frederic proposed changing all these to irq_work, and I think I'll go do
> that. First dinner though.
The irq_work API looks reasonable. What are the tradeoffs
On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 09:33:42AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 05:58:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > A request can only be completed once.
> >
> > Sure, but that doesn't help.
> >
> > CPU0CPU1
> >
> > raise_blk_irq()
On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 05:58:33PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > A request can only be completed once.
>
> Sure, but that doesn't help.
>
> CPU0 CPU1
>
> raise_blk_irq() BLOCK_SOFTIRQ
>IPI -> CPU1
>
> // picks up thing
On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 08:45:57AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 01:58:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Hi Jens,
> >
> > I've been going through smp_call_function_single_async() users and
> > stumbled upon blk-softirq.c, which has:
> >
> > static int raise_blk_irq
On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 01:58:00PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> I've been going through smp_call_function_single_async() users and
> stumbled upon blk-softirq.c, which has:
>
> static int raise_blk_irq(int cpu, struct request *rq)
> {
> if (cpu_online(cpu)) {
>
7 matches
Mail list logo
