On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 9:41 PM Keith Busch <kbusch@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 02:16:18PM +0530, Kanchan Joshi wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 08:52:53AM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > > > > > + else if (issue_flags & IO_URING_F_IOPOLL) > > > > > + ioucmd->flags |= IORING_URING_CMD_NOPOLL; > > > > > > > > If IO_URING_F_IOPOLL would have come here as part of "ioucmd->flags", we > > > > could have just cleared that here. That would avoid the need of NOPOLL flag. > > > > That said, I don't feel strongly about new flag too. You decide. > > > > > > IO_URING_F_IOPOLL, while named in an enum that sounds suspiciouly like it is > > > part of ioucmd->flags, is actually ctx flags, so a little confusing. And we > > > need to be a litle careful here: the existing ioucmd->flags is used with uapi > > > flags. > > > > Indeed. If this is getting crufty, series can just enable polling on > > no-payload requests. Reducing nvme handlers - for another day. > > Well something needs to be done about multipath since it's broken today: if the > path changes between submission and poll, we'll consult the wrong queue for > polling enabled. This could cause a missed polling opprotunity, polling a > pointer that isn't a bio, or poll an irq enabled cq. All are bad. I see, that is because "nvme_find_path" was used. How about using top 4 bits of "ioucmd->flags" for an internal flag. That means we can support max 28 flags for "sqe->uring_cmd_flags". That perhaps is not too bad, given that we use one bit at the moment?
