Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 22 Jul 2019 22:19:41 +0800
From:   Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To:     Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org>
Cc:     axboe@kernel.dk, adrian.hunter@intel.com, ulf.hansson@linaro.org,
        zhang.lyra@gmail.com, orsonzhai@gmail.com, arnd@arndb.de,
        linus.walleij@linaro.org, vincent.guittot@linaro.org,
        linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/7] blk-mq: Export blk_mq_hctx_has_pending() function
Message-ID: <20190722141940.GA26528@ming.t460p>
References: <cover.1563782844.git.baolin.wang@linaro.org>
 <94a0d20e6304b909391abd9a425c71c376cad964.1563782844.git.baolin.wang@linaro.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <94a0d20e6304b909391abd9a425c71c376cad964.1563782844.git.baolin.wang@linaro.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.3 (2019-02-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 09:09:36PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> Some SD/MMC host controllers can support packed command or packed request,
> that means we can package several requests to host controller at one time
> to improve performence. And this patch set will introduce MMC packed function
> to support this feature by following patches.
> 
> To support MMC packed function, the MMC layer need to know if there are
> requests are pending now in hardware queue to help to combine requests
> as much as possible. If we know there are requests pending in hardware
> queue, then we should not package requests to host controller immediately,
> instead we should collect more requests into MMC packed queue to be packed
> to host controller with packed condition.
> 
> Thus export this function for MMC packed function.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linaro.org>
> ---
>  block/blk-mq.c         |    3 ++-
>  include/linux/blk-mq.h |    1 +
>  2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> index b038ec6..5bd4ef9 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> @@ -63,12 +63,13 @@ static int blk_mq_poll_stats_bkt(const struct request *rq)
>   * Check if any of the ctx, dispatch list or elevator
>   * have pending work in this hardware queue.
>   */
> -static bool blk_mq_hctx_has_pending(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> +bool blk_mq_hctx_has_pending(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
>  {
>  	return !list_empty_careful(&hctx->dispatch) ||
>  		sbitmap_any_bit_set(&hctx->ctx_map) ||
>  			blk_mq_sched_has_work(hctx);
>  }
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(blk_mq_hctx_has_pending);

Just wondering why you don't use the 'last' field of 'struct blk_mq_queue_data',
which is passed to .queue_rq(), and supposed for implementing batch submission.
	

Thanks,
Ming