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: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Use llist_head for blk_cpu_done
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To:     Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
        Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        David Runge <dave@sleepmap.de>, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Daniel Wagner <dwagner@suse.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>
References: <20201028065616.GA24449@infradead.org>
 <20201028141251.3608598-1-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <20201028141251.3608598-3-bigeasy@linutronix.de>
 <20201029131212.dsulzvsb6pahahbs@linutronix.de>
 <20201029140536.GA6376@infradead.org>
 <20201029145623.3zry7o6nh6ks5tjj@linutronix.de>
 <20201029145743.GA19379@infradead.org>
 <d2c15411-5b21-535b-6e07-331ebe22f8c8@grimberg.me>
 <20201029210103.ocufuvj6i4idf5hj@linutronix.de>
 <deb40e55-d228-06c8-8719-fc8657a0a19b@grimberg.me>
 <20201031104108.wjjdiklqrgyqmj54@linutronix.de>
 <3bbfb5e1-c5d7-8f3b-4b96-6dc02be0550d@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <76005875-1cfd-fb35-07f4-d35877d58b90@kernel.dk>
Date:   Sat, 31 Oct 2020 09:01:45 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3bbfb5e1-c5d7-8f3b-4b96-6dc02be0550d@kernel.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 10/31/20 9:00 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/31/20 4:41 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>> On 2020-10-29 14:07:59 [-0700], Sagi Grimberg wrote:
>>>> in which context?
>>>
>>> Not sure what is the question.
>>
>> The question is in which context do you complete your requests. My guess
>> by now is "usually softirq/NAPI and context in rare error case".
> 
> There really aren't any rules for this, and it's perfectly legit to
> complete from process context. Maybe you're a kthread driven driver and
> that's how you handle completions. The block completion path has always
> been hard IRQ safe, but possible to call from anywhere.

A more recent example is polled IO, which will always complete from
process/task context and very much is fast path.

-- 
Jens Axboe