From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Chao Leng <lengchao@huawei.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>,
linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] blk-mq: add async quiesce interface
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 11:50:33 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200727035033.GD1129253@T590> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f9ed3baa-2a83-c483-6ba0-70a84d40f569@huawei.com>
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 11:33:43AM +0800, Chao Leng wrote:
>
>
> On 2020/7/27 10:08, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > It is at the end and contains exactly what is needed to synchronize. Not
> > The sync is simply single global synchronize_rcu(), and why bother to add
> > extra >=40bytes for each hctx.
> >
> > > sure what you mean by reuse hctx->srcu?
> > You already reuses hctx->srcu, but not see reason to add extra rcu_synchronize
> > to each hctx for just simulating one single synchronize_rcu().
>
> To sync srcu together, the extra bytes must be needed, seperate blocking
> and non blocking queue to two hctx may be a not good choice.
>
> There is two choice: the struct rcu_synchronize is added in hctx or in srcu.
> Though add rcu_synchronize in srcu has a weakness: the extra bytes is
> not need if which do not need batch sync srcu, I still think it's better
> for the SRCU to provide the batch synchronization interface.
The 'struct rcu_synchronize' can be allocated from heap or even stack(
if no too many NSs), which is just one shot sync and the API is supposed
to be called in slow path. No need to allocate it as long lifetime variable.
Especially 'struct srcu_struct' has already been too fat.
Thanks,
Ming
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvme mailing list
Linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvme
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-27 3:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-26 0:22 [PATCH v3 0/2] improve quiesce time for large amount of namespaces Sagi Grimberg
2020-07-26 0:23 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] blk-mq: add async quiesce interface Sagi Grimberg
2020-07-26 9:31 ` Ming Lei
2020-07-26 16:27 ` Sagi Grimberg
2020-07-27 2:08 ` Ming Lei
2020-07-27 3:33 ` Chao Leng
2020-07-27 3:50 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2020-07-27 5:55 ` Chao Leng
2020-07-27 6:32 ` Ming Lei
2020-07-27 18:40 ` Sagi Grimberg
2020-07-27 18:38 ` Sagi Grimberg
2020-07-27 18:36 ` Sagi Grimberg
2020-07-27 20:37 ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-27 21:00 ` Sagi Grimberg
2020-07-27 21:05 ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-27 21:21 ` Keith Busch
2020-07-27 21:30 ` Jens Axboe
2020-07-28 1:09 ` Ming Lei
2020-07-26 0:23 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] nvme: improve quiesce time for large amount of namespaces Sagi Grimberg
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200727035033.GD1129253@T590 \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=lengchao@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).