From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S941375AbdAIVRj (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2017 16:17:39 -0500 Received: from mail-qk0-f194.google.com ([209.85.220.194]:35431 "EHLO mail-qk0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754248AbdAIVRf (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Jan 2017 16:17:35 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 16:17:28 -0500 From: Tejun Heo To: Shaohua Li Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com, axboe@fb.com, vgoyal@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 15/17] block: track request size in blk_issue_stat Message-ID: <20170109211728.GT12827@mtj.duckdns.org> References: <76954496f30da4902288fc027a0ed74a232535e5.1481833017.git.shli@fb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <76954496f30da4902288fc027a0ed74a232535e5.1481833017.git.shli@fb.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 12:33:06PM -0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > Currently there is no way to know the request size when the request is > finished. Next patch will need this info, so add to blk_issue_stat. With > this, we will have 49bits to track time, which still is very long time. Not necessarily an objection but do we really need to overload the size field? Would a normal extra field hurt too much? Thanks. -- tejun