Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-36220-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 00:24:36 +0000
From: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>, Wei Wang <wvw@google.com>,
	Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
	Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block/blk-mq: Don't complete locally if capacities are
 different
Message-ID: <20240124002436.dj5lpjpdc3uttbx4@airbuntu>
References: <20240122224220.1206234-1-qyousef@layalina.io>
 <Za99LKnQE/M6pVfM@infradead.org>
 <c85898de-0780-4690-adfa-99332eae0090@kernel.dk>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <c85898de-0780-4690-adfa-99332eae0090@kernel.dk>

On 01/23/24 08:58, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 1/23/24 1:47 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 10:42:20PM +0000, Qais Yousef wrote:
> >> The logic in blk_mq_complete_need_ipi() assumes SMP systems where all
> >> CPUs have equal capacities
> > 
> > What is a capacity here?
> 
> It seems to be the chosen word to describe the performance potential of
> the core in question, we use it elsewhere in the kernel. But yes, could
> do with a bit more of an explanation.

Is referring to it as compute capacity makes it clearer? Sorry I thought that's
a common term.

> 
> >> +	return arch_scale_cpu_capacity(this_cpu) >= arch_scale_cpu_capacity(that_cpu);
> > 
> > oerly long line here.

This is consistent with similar long lines in the same file and it's more
readable as one line. checkpatch doesn't complain about this being long;
I think they look for 100 or 120 now. This is 86.

> > 
> > Also pleas split patches for different subsystems.
> 
> Yes please, the sched/topology thing should be a separate prep patch.

Okay. I thought the norm to keep such small patches self contained as adding
dead code followed by a one liner isn't always seen as better. But a split it
is :)

I'll give the sched/arm folks time to have a look before I post a new version.


Thanks!

--
Qais Yousef