Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/7] block: Extand commit_rqs() to do batch
 processing
To:     Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc:     Baolin Wang <baolin.wang7@gmail.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, axboe@kernel.dk,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org>,
        Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>,
        Orson Zhai <orsonzhai@gmail.com>,
        Chunyan Zhang <zhang.lyra@gmail.com>,
        linux-mmc <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20200427154645.GA1201@infradead.org>
 <e4d47000-f89c-a135-ae58-011f0e9cc39e@grimberg.me>
 <20200508214639.GA1389136@T590>
 <fe6bd8b9-6ed9-b225-f80c-314746133722@grimberg.me>
 <20200508232222.GA1391368@T590>
 <CADBw62ooysT7TJ5CjpPBC6zs7pvpUQysg8QqP9oW5jN7BSYS7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200509094306.GA1414369@T590>
 <6579459b-aa98-78f2-f805-a6cd46f37b6c@grimberg.me>
 <20200511012942.GA1418834@T590>
 <8f2ddabc-01d0-dae9-f958-1b26a6bdf58c@grimberg.me>
 <20200511114731.GA1525935@T590>
From:   Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>
Message-ID: <9dc69d5a-b4f3-23a6-e033-377b4e133f97@grimberg.me>
Date:   Mon, 11 May 2020 23:26:07 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/68.0 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200511114731.GA1525935@T590>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


>> devices will benefit from the batching so maybe the flag needs to be
>> inverted? BLK_MQ_F_DONT_BATCHING_SUBMISSION?
> 
> Actually I'd rather to not add any flag, and we may use some algorithm
> (maybe EWMA or other intelligent stuff, or use hctx->dispatch_busy directly)
> to figure out one dynamic batching number which is used to dequeue requests
> from scheduler or sw queue.
> 
> Then just one single dispatch io code path is enough.

Sounds good to me, do you plan to submit a patchset?