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;
Date:   Mon, 24 May 2021 16:59:28 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Cc:     virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, slp@redhat.com,
        sgarzare@redhat.com, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] virtio_blk: implement blk_mq_ops->poll()
Message-ID: <20210524145928.GA3873@lst.de>
References: <20210520141305.355961-1-stefanha@redhat.com> <20210520141305.355961-4-stefanha@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210520141305.355961-4-stefanha@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 03:13:05PM +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> Possible drawbacks of this approach:
> 
> - Hardware virtio_blk implementations may find virtqueue_disable_cb()
>   expensive since it requires DMA. If such devices become popular then
>   the virtio_blk driver could use a similar approach to NVMe when
>   VIRTIO_F_ACCESS_PLATFORM is detected in the future.
> 
> - If a blk_poll() thread is descheduled it not only hurts polling
>   performance but also delays completion of non-REQ_HIPRI requests on
>   that virtqueue since vq notifications are disabled.

Yes, I think this is a dangerous configuration.  What argument exists
again just using dedicated poll queues?