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. -- Jens Axboe
