lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC] blk-mq: Don't IPI requests on PREEMPT_RT
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 03:52:19PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2020-10-23 12:21:30 [+0100], Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > - if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) ||
> > > + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP) || IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) ||
> > > !test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_SAME_COMP, &rq->q->queue_flags))
> >
> > This needs a big fat comment explaining your rationale. And probably
> > a separate if statement to make it obvious as well.
>
> Okay.
> How much difference does it make between completing in-softirq vs
> in-IPI?

For normal non-RT builds? This introduces another context switch, which
for the latencies we are aiming for is noticable.

> I'm asking because acquiring a spinlock_t in an IPI shouldn't be
> done (as per Documentation/locking/locktypes.rst). We don't have
> anything in lockdep that will complain here on !RT and we the above we
> avoid the case on RT.

At least for NVMe we aren't taking locks, but with the number of drivers

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-10-27 10:26    [W:0.067 / U:0.780 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site