On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 08:52:38AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 5/15/23 07:46, Ming Lei wrote:
> > @@ -48,7 +53,7 @@ blk_mq_sched_allow_merge(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq,
> > static inline void blk_mq_sched_completed_request(struct request *rq, u64 now)
> > {
> > - if (rq->rq_flags & RQF_ELV) {
> > + if ((rq->rq_flags & RQF_ELV) && !blk_mq_bypass_sched(rq->cmd_flags)) {
> > struct elevator_queue *e = rq->q->elevator;
> > if (e->type->ops.completed_request)
> > @@ -58,7 +63,7 @@ static inline void blk_mq_sched_completed_request(struct request *rq, u64 now)
> > static inline void blk_mq_sched_requeue_request(struct request *rq)
> > {
> > - if (rq->rq_flags & RQF_ELV) {
> > + if ((rq->rq_flags & RQF_ELV) && !blk_mq_bypass_sched(rq->cmd_flags)) {
> > struct request_queue *q = rq->q;
> > struct elevator_queue *e = q->elevator;
>
> Has it been considered not to set RQF_ELV for passthrough requests instead
> of making the above changes?
That sounds like a good idea. It changes more behavior than what Ming is
targeting here, but after looking through each use for RQF_ELV, I think
not having that set really is the right thing to do in all cases for
passthrough requests.
