On 8/30/23 4:29 PM, Leonardo Br?s wrote: > On Tue, 2023-08-29 at 10:29 +0800, Chengming Zhou wrote: >> On 2023/8/29 08:55, Leonardo Br?s wrote: >>> On Tue, 2023-07-04 at 04:22 -0300, Leonardo Br?s 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? Just send it against Linus's tree, it's all upstream now. -- Jens Axboe
