On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 05:29:25PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> We reduce the resolution of request expiry, but since we're already
> using jiffies for this where resolution depends on the kernel
> configuration and since the timeout resolution is coarse anyway,
> that should be fine.
Reviewed-by:
On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 17:29 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> We reduce the resolution of request expiry, but since we're already
> using jiffies for this where resolution depends on the kernel
> configuration and since the timeout resolution is coarse anyway,
> that should be fine.
Reviewed-by: Bart
We reduce the resolution of request expiry, but since we're already
using jiffies for this where resolution depends on the kernel
configuration and since the timeout resolution is coarse anyway,
that should be fine.
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe
---
block/blk-mq.c | 2 +-
On 1/9/18 11:40 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-01-09 at 11:27 -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> +static inline void blk_rq_set_deadline(struct request *rq, unsigned long
>> time)
>> +{
>> +rq->__deadline = time & ~0x1;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline unsigned long blk_rq_deadline(struct
We reduce the resolution of request expiry, but since we're already
using jiffies for this where resolution depends on the kernel
configuration and since the timeout resolution is coarse anyway,
that should be fine.
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe
---
block/blk-mq.c | 2 +-