On 6/23/23 02:23, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 6/21/23 18:19, Damien Le Moal wrote: >> Why ? I still do not understand the need for this. There is always only a single >> in-flight write per sequential zone. Requeuing that in-flight write directly to >> the dispatch list will not reorder writes and it will be better for the command >> latency. > Hi Damien, > > After having taken a closer look I see that blk_req_zone_write_unlock() > is called from inside dd_insert_request() when requeuing a request. > Hence, there is no reordering risk when requeuing a zoned write. I will > drop this patch. OK. Thanks. > > Do you agree with having one requeue list per hctx instead of per > request queue? This change enables eliminating > blk_mq_kick_requeue_list(). I think that's an interesting simplification > of the block layer API. I do not see any issue with that. Indeed, it does simplify the code nicely. Reading patch 5, I wondered though if it is really worth keeping the helpers blk_mq_kick_requeue_list() and blk_mq_delay_kick_requeue_list(). May be calling blk_mq_run_hw_queues() and blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queues() is better ? No strong opinion though. -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research
