Re: [PATCH 5/5] blk-mq: support nested blk_mq_quiesce_queue()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 9/29/21 7:15 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
Turns out that blk_mq_freeze_queue() isn't stronger[1] than
blk_mq_quiesce_queue() because dispatch may still be in-progress after
queue is frozen, and in several cases, such as switching io scheduler,
updating nr_requests & wbt latency, we still need to quiesce queue as a
supplement of freezing queue.

As we need to extend uses of blk_mq_quiesce_queue(), it is inevitable
for us to need support nested quiesce, especailly we can't let
unquiesce happen when there is quiesce originated from other contexts.

The serialization need is clear, but why is the nesting required?
In other words what is the harm is running the hw queue every time
we unquiesce?



[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [IDE]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux