On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 12:13:04PM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 11:26:32AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 08:47:46AM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > > > > > And the passthrough case is special with users of that interface taking > > > on a greater responsibility and generally want the kernel out of the > > > way. I don't think anyone would purposefully run a tag intense workload > > > through that engine at the same time as using a generic one with the > > > scheduler. It definitely should still work, but it doesn't need to be > > > fair, right? > > > > I guess it may work, but question is that what we can get from this kind > > of big change? And I think this approach may be one following work if it is > > proved as useful. > > I'm just trying to remove any need for side channels to bypass block > layer functionality, like this one: > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-nvme/2023-April/039522.html > In "io_uring attached nvme queue" patchset, Kanchan tried to bypass request/bio completely, and same with blk-mq's pt code path. You mean you'd suggest to still reuse req/bio & blk-mq pt code path for "io_uring attached nvme queue"? Cc Kanchan. Thanks, Ming
