linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tal Zussman <tz2294@columbia.edu>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
	"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
	Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4 1/3] block: add BIO_COMPLETE_IN_TASK for task-context completion
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2026 15:35:52 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <52016a51-58c7-41eb-8824-3c133aab90b2@columbia.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <acYdOOpo51xrzNBg@infradead.org>



On 3/27/26 2:01 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2026 at 02:43:00PM -0400, Tal Zussman wrote:
>> +static void bio_complete_work_fn(struct work_struct *w)
>> +{
>> +	struct bio_complete_batch *batch;
>> +	struct bio_list list;
>> +
>> +again:
>> +	local_lock_irq(&bio_complete_batch.lock);
>> +	batch = this_cpu_ptr(&bio_complete_batch);
>> +	list = batch->list;
>> +	bio_list_init(&batch->list);
>> +	local_unlock_irq(&bio_complete_batch.lock);
>> +
>> +	while (!bio_list_empty(&list)) {
>> +		struct bio *bio = bio_list_pop(&list);
>> +		bio->bi_end_io(bio);
>> +	}
> 
> bio_list_pop already does a NULL check, so this could be:
> 
> 	while ((bio = bio_list_pop(&batch->list)))
> 		bio->bi_end_io(bio);
> 
> In fact that same pattern is repeated later, so maybe just add a helper
> for it?  But I think Dave's idea of just using a llist (and adding a
> new llist member to the bio for this) seems sensible.  Just don't forget
> the llist_reverse_order call to avoid reordering.

Will switch to llist.

>> +
>> +	local_lock_irq(&bio_complete_batch.lock);
>> +	batch = this_cpu_ptr(&bio_complete_batch);
>> +	if (!bio_list_empty(&batch->list)) {
>> +		local_unlock_irq(&bio_complete_batch.lock);
>> +
>> +		if (!need_resched())
>> +			goto again;
>> +
>> +		schedule_work_on(smp_processor_id(), &batch->work);
>> +		return;
>> +	}
>> +	local_unlock_irq(&bio_complete_batch.lock);
> 
> I don't really understand this requeue logic.  Can you explain it?

If new bios were queued while we were processing this batch, we loop back
and process them, if we don't need to reschedule. If we do need to
reschedule, we re-queue the work item and return.

>> +	schedule_work_on(smp_processor_id(), &batch->work);
> 
> We'll probably want a dedicated workqueue here to avoid deadlocks
> vs other system wq uses.
> 
>> +static int bio_complete_batch_cpu_dead(unsigned int cpu)
>> +{
>> +	struct bio_complete_batch *batch = per_cpu_ptr(&bio_complete_batch, cpu);
> 
> Overly long line.
> 

Will fix.

Thanks,
Tal



  reply	other threads:[~2026-04-08 19:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-03-25 18:42 [PATCH RFC v4 0/3] block: enable RWF_DONTCACHE for block devices Tal Zussman
2026-03-25 18:43 ` [PATCH RFC v4 1/3] block: add BIO_COMPLETE_IN_TASK for task-context completion Tal Zussman
2026-03-25 19:54   ` Matthew Wilcox
2026-03-25 20:14   ` Jens Axboe
2026-04-08 18:48     ` Tal Zussman
2026-04-08 19:51       ` Jens Axboe
2026-04-08 22:51         ` Tal Zussman
2026-03-25 20:26   ` Dave Chinner
2026-03-25 20:39     ` Matthew Wilcox
2026-03-26  2:44       ` Dave Chinner
2026-04-08 18:50     ` Tal Zussman
2026-03-25 21:03   ` Bart Van Assche
2026-03-26  3:18     ` Dave Chinner
2026-03-27  6:01   ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-04-08 19:35     ` Tal Zussman [this message]
2026-03-25 18:43 ` [PATCH RFC v4 2/3] iomap: use BIO_COMPLETE_IN_TASK for dropbehind writeback Tal Zussman
2026-03-25 20:21   ` Matthew Wilcox
2026-03-27  6:03     ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-04-08 19:36     ` Tal Zussman
2026-04-08 19:44     ` Tal Zussman
2026-04-08 20:01       ` Matthew Wilcox
2026-04-08 20:10         ` Tal Zussman
2026-03-25 20:34   ` Dave Chinner
2026-03-27  6:08     ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-03-27  6:24       ` Gao Xiang
2026-03-27  6:27         ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-03-27  6:45           ` Gao Xiang
2026-03-25 18:43 ` [PATCH RFC v4 3/3] block: enable RWF_DONTCACHE for block devices Tal Zussman

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=52016a51-58c7-41eb-8824-3c133aab90b2@columbia.edu \
    --to=tz2294@columbia.edu \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=brauner@kernel.org \
    --cc=cem@kernel.org \
    --cc=djwong@kernel.org \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox