From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:44215 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932299AbdCINov (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Mar 2017 08:44:51 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH rfc 04/10] block: Add a non-selective polling interface To: Sagi Grimberg , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, target-devel@vger.kernel.org References: <1489065402-14757-1-git-send-email-sagi@grimberg.me> <1489065402-14757-5-git-send-email-sagi@grimberg.me> From: Johannes Thumshirn Message-ID: <83713ef7-168d-e1f6-8220-b7d6264ea29a@suse.de> Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 14:44:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1489065402-14757-5-git-send-email-sagi@grimberg.me> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On 03/09/2017 02:16 PM, Sagi Grimberg wrote: > For a server/target appliance mode where we don't > necessarily care about specific IOs but rather want > to poll opportunisticly, it is useful to have a > non-selective polling interface. > > Expose a blk_poll_batch for a batched blkdev polling > interface so our nvme target (and others) can use. > > Signed-off-by: Sagi Grimberg > --- > block/blk-mq.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ > include/linux/blk-mq.h | 2 ++ > include/linux/blkdev.h | 1 + > 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c > index b2fd175e84d7..1962785b571a 100644 > --- a/block/blk-mq.c > +++ b/block/blk-mq.c > @@ -2911,6 +2911,20 @@ bool blk_mq_poll(struct request_queue *q, blk_qc_t cookie) > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(blk_mq_poll); > > +int blk_mq_poll_batch(struct request_queue *q, unsigned int batch) > +{ > + struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx; > + > + if (!q->mq_ops || !q->mq_ops->poll_batch) > + return 0; > + > + hctx = blk_mq_map_queue(q, smp_processor_id()); > + return q->mq_ops->poll_batch(hctx, batch); > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(blk_mq_poll_batch); > + > + > + Quite some additional newlines and I'm not really fond of the ->poll_batch() name. It's a bit confusing with ->poll() and we also have irq_poll(). But the only thing that would come to my mind is complete_batch() which "races" with ->complete(). Otherwise looks OK, Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn -- Johannes Thumshirn Storage jthumshirn@suse.de +49 911 74053 689 SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N�rnberg GF: Felix Imend�rffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG N�rnberg) Key fingerprint = EC38 9CAB C2C4 F25D 8600 D0D0 0393 969D 2D76 0850