On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 01:31:00PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 5/17/23 6:32 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> > On 5/17/23 08:23, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 01:54:43PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> >>> Use IOU_F_TWQ_LAZY_WAKE via iou_cmd_exec_in_task_lazy() for passthrough
> >>> commands completion. It further delays the execution of task_work for
> >>> DEFER_TASKRUN until there are enough of task_work items queued to meet
> >>> the waiting criteria, which reduces the number of wake ups we issue.
> >>
> >> Why wouldn't you just do that unconditionally for
> >> io_uring_cmd_complete_in_task?
> >
> > 1) ublk does secondary batching and so may produce multiple cqes,
> > that's not supported. I believe Ming sent patches removing it,
> > but I'd rather not deal with conflicts for now.
>
> Ming, what's the status of those patches? Looks like we'll end up
> with a dependency regardless of the ordering of these. Since these
> patches are here now, sanest approach seems to move forward with
> this series and defer the conflict resolving to the ublk side.
I didn't send patch to remove the batch in ublk, such as, the following
line code:
ublk_queue_cmd():
...
if (!llist_add(&data->node, &ubq->io_cmds))
return;
...
But I did want to kill it given __io_req_task_work_add() can do batching
process, but we have to re-order request in this list, so can't remove it
now simply, see commit:
7d4a93176e01 ("ublk_drv: don't forward io commands in reserve order")
Pavel must have misunderstood the following one as the batch removal:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20230427124414.319945-2-ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx/
thanks,
Ming
