On 11/04/2016 08:46 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 10:00:58PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
I've applied 1-2 for 4.10, but we probably should look into unifying
those parts of sq and mq in general. For instance, it doesn't seem to
make a lot of sense why we'd depth limit sq and
On 11/04/2016 08:46 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 10:00:58PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
I've applied 1-2 for 4.10, but we probably should look into unifying
those parts of sq and mq in general. For instance, it doesn't seem to
make a lot of sense why we'd depth limit sq and
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 10:00:58PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> I've applied 1-2 for 4.10, but we probably should look into unifying
> those parts of sq and mq in general. For instance, it doesn't seem to
> make a lot of sense why we'd depth limit sq and not mq.
I've spent some time looking the the
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 10:00:58PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> I've applied 1-2 for 4.10, but we probably should look into unifying
> those parts of sq and mq in general. For instance, it doesn't seem to
> make a lot of sense why we'd depth limit sq and not mq.
I've spent some time looking the the
On 11/03/2016 06:13 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 05:09:54PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 05:03:54PM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
This is corresponding part for blk-mq. Disk with multiple hardware
queues doesn't need this as we only hold 1 request at
On 11/03/2016 06:13 PM, Shaohua Li wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 05:09:54PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 05:03:54PM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
This is corresponding part for blk-mq. Disk with multiple hardware
queues doesn't need this as we only hold 1 request at
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 05:09:54PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 05:03:54PM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > This is corresponding part for blk-mq. Disk with multiple hardware
> > queues doesn't need this as we only hold 1 request at most.
>
> Any reason you only do this
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 05:09:54PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 05:03:54PM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > This is corresponding part for blk-mq. Disk with multiple hardware
> > queues doesn't need this as we only hold 1 request at most.
>
> Any reason you only do this
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 05:03:54PM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> This is corresponding part for blk-mq. Disk with multiple hardware
> queues doesn't need this as we only hold 1 request at most.
Any reason you only do this for the SQ and not the MQ case?
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 05:03:54PM -0700, Shaohua Li wrote:
> This is corresponding part for blk-mq. Disk with multiple hardware
> queues doesn't need this as we only hold 1 request at most.
Any reason you only do this for the SQ and not the MQ case?
This is corresponding part for blk-mq. Disk with multiple hardware
queues doesn't need this as we only hold 1 request at most.
Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li
---
block/blk-mq.c | 7 ++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
This is corresponding part for blk-mq. Disk with multiple hardware
queues doesn't need this as we only hold 1 request at most.
Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li
---
block/blk-mq.c | 7 ++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
index
12 matches
Mail list logo