On Tue, 2023-08-29 at 10:29 +0800, Chengming Zhou wrote: > On 2023/8/29 08:55, Leonardo Brás wrote: > > On Tue, 2023-07-04 at 04:22 -0300, Leonardo Brás wrote: > > > On Tue, 2023-06-13 at 00:51 -0300, Leonardo Bras Soares Passos wrote: > > > > Friendly ping > > > > > > > > On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 2:30 AM Leonardo Bras <leobras@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Changes since RFCv1: > > > > > - request->csd moved to the middle of the struct, without size impact > > > > > - type change happens in a different patch (thanks Jens Axboe!) > > > > > - Improved the third patch to also update the .h file. > > > > > > > > > > Leonardo Bras (3): > > > > > blk-mq: Move csd inside struct request so it's 32-byte aligned > > > > > blk-mq: Change request->csd type to call_single_data_t > > > > > smp: Change signatures to use call_single_data_t > > > > > > > > > > include/linux/blk-mq.h | 10 +++++----- > > > > > include/linux/smp.h | 2 +- > > > > > kernel/smp.c | 4 ++-- > > > > > kernel/up.c | 2 +- > > > > > 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.40.1 > > > > > > > > > > > Hello Jens, > > > > > > I still want your feedback on this series :) > > > > > > I think I addressed every issue of RFCv1, but if you have any other feedback, > > > please let me know. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > Leo > > > > Hello Jens Axboe, > > > > Please provide feedback on this series! > > > > Are you ok with those changes? > > What's your opinion on them? > > > > Thanks! > > Leo > > > > Hello, > > FYI, there is no csd in struct request anymore in block/for-next branch, > which is deleted by this commit: > > commit 660e802c76c89e871c29cd3174c07c8d23e39c35 > Author: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Mon Jul 17 12:00:55 2023 +0800 > > blk-mq: use percpu csd to remote complete instead of per-rq csd > > If request need to be completed remotely, we insert it into percpu llist, > and smp_call_function_single_async() if llist is empty previously. > > We don't need to use per-rq csd, percpu csd is enough. And the size of > struct request is decreased by 24 bytes. > > This way is cleaner, and looks correct, given block softirq is guaranteed > to be scheduled to consume the list if one new request is added to this > percpu list, either smp_call_function_single_async() returns -EBUSY or 0. > > Signed-off-by: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx> > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230717040058.3993930-2-chengming.zhou@xxxxxxxxx > Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx> > Oh, thanks for the heads-up! I will send reviewed version of patch 3. I suppose it can go on top of block/for-next, since the above patch is there. Does that work for you Jens Axboe? Thanks! Leo
