On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 01:53:44PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > Turns out that wasn't what patch 2 was. And the code is right there > above as well, and under the q_lock, so I guess that race doesn't > exist. > > But that does bring up the fact if we should always be doing the > nvme_process_cq(nvmeq) after IO submission. For direct/hipri IO, > maybe it's better to make the submission path faster and skip it?
Yes, I am okay to remove the opprotunistic nvme_process_cq in the submission path. Even under deeply queued IO, I've not seen this provide any measurable benefit.
