Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-79899-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024 23:06:24 +0000
From: Qais Yousef <qyousef@layalina.io>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, 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>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] block/blk-mq: Don't complete locally if
 capacities are different
Message-ID: <20240224230624.3sk3b5pmhoi67c3r@airbuntu>
References: <20240223155749.2958009-1-qyousef@layalina.io>
 <20240223155749.2958009-3-qyousef@layalina.io>
 <8fc70827-9785-48d0-9a43-e1e3674317e9@acm.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8fc70827-9785-48d0-9a43-e1e3674317e9@acm.org>

On 02/23/24 08:09, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 2/23/24 07:57, Qais Yousef wrote:
> > diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> > index 2dc01551e27c..ea69047e12f7 100644
> > --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> > +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> > @@ -1167,10 +1167,11 @@ static inline bool blk_mq_complete_need_ipi(struct request *rq)
> >   	if (force_irqthreads())
> >   		return false;
> > -	/* same CPU or cache domain?  Complete locally */
> > +	/* same CPU or cache domain and capacity?  Complete locally */
> >   	if (cpu == rq->mq_ctx->cpu ||
> >   	    (!test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_SAME_FORCE, &rq->q->queue_flags) &&
> > -	     cpus_share_cache(cpu, rq->mq_ctx->cpu)))
> > +	     cpus_share_cache(cpu, rq->mq_ctx->cpu) &&
> > +	     cpus_equal_capacity(cpu, rq->mq_ctx->cpu)))
> >   		return false;
> >   	/* don't try to IPI to an offline CPU */
> 
> I think it's worth mentioning that this change is intended for storage
> controllers that only support a single completion interrupt. Anyway:

Sorry I didn't realize it is only applied for this scenario.

> 
> Reviewed-by: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>

Thanks for the reviews!