From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0298AC433E0 for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 08:32:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEB7520801 for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 08:32:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727075AbgERIcm (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2020 04:32:42 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:58344 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726448AbgERIcm (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 May 2020 04:32:42 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [IPv6:2a0a:51c0:0:12e:550::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E61C2C05BD09 for ; Mon, 18 May 2020 01:32:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p5de0bf0b.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([93.224.191.11] helo=nanos.tec.linutronix.de) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1jabCB-00057g-Hr; Mon, 18 May 2020 10:32:23 +0200 Received: by nanos.tec.linutronix.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 008161006FB; Mon, 18 May 2020 10:32:22 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, John Garry , Bart Van Assche , Hannes Reinecke , Ming Lei Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] blk-mq: don't set data->ctx and data->hctx in blk_mq_alloc_request_hctx In-Reply-To: <20200518063937.757218-6-hch@lst.de> References: <20200518063937.757218-1-hch@lst.de> <20200518063937.757218-6-hch@lst.de> Date: Mon, 18 May 2020 10:32:22 +0200 Message-ID: <871rnhzlrd.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org Christoph Hellwig writes: > diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c > index fcfce666457e2..540b5845cd1d3 100644 > --- a/block/blk-mq.c > +++ b/block/blk-mq.c > @@ -386,6 +386,20 @@ static struct request *__blk_mq_alloc_request(struct blk_mq_alloc_data *data) > return rq; > } > > +static void __blk_mq_alloc_request_cb(void *__data) > +{ > + struct blk_mq_alloc_data *data = __data; > + > + data->rq = __blk_mq_alloc_request(data); > +} > + > +static struct request *__blk_mq_alloc_request_on_cpumask(const cpumask_t *mask, > + struct blk_mq_alloc_data *data) > +{ > + smp_call_function_any(mask, __blk_mq_alloc_request_cb, data, 1); > + return data->rq; > +} Is this absolutely necessary to be a smp function call? That's going to be problematic vs. RT. Same applies to the explicit preempt_disable() in patch 7. Thanks, tglx