Re: [PATCH 1/3] blk-mq: unify hctx delayed_run_work and run_work

On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 09:54:54AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > They serve the exact same purpose. Get rid of the non-delayed > work variant, and just run it without delay for the normal case. > > Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe > --- > block/blk-core.c | 2 +- > block/blk-mq.c

Re: [PATCH 1/3] blk-mq: unify hctx delayed_run_work and run_work

On Fri, 2017-04-14 at 14:02 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > I was waiting for further comments on patch 3/3. Hello Jens, Patch 3/3 is probably fine but I hope that you understand that the introduction of a new race condition does not make me enthusiast. Should your explanation of why that race is

Re: [PATCH 1/3] blk-mq: unify hctx delayed_run_work and run_work

On 04/11/2017 12:00 PM, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 09:54 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: >> void blk_mq_stop_hw_queue(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx) >> { >> -cancel_work(>run_work); >> +cancel_delayed_work(>run_work); >> cancel_delayed_work(>delay_work); >>

Re: [PATCH 1/3] blk-mq: unify hctx delayed_run_work and run_work

On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 09:54 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > void blk_mq_stop_hw_queue(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx) > { > - cancel_work(>run_work); > + cancel_delayed_work(>run_work); > cancel_delayed_work(>delay_work); > set_bit(BLK_MQ_S_STOPPED, >state); > } Hello Jens, I would

Re: [PATCH 1/3] blk-mq: unify hctx delayed_run_work and run_work

On Mon, 2017-04-10 at 09:54 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > They serve the exact same purpose. Get rid of the non-delayed > work variant, and just run it without delay for the normal case. Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche

Re: [PATCH 1/3] blk-mq: unify hctx delayed_run_work and run_work

Looks good, Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig