Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] nvme-pci: adaptive interrupt coalescing

Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]>
Newsgroups org.infradead.lists.linux-nvme,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 10:22:11AM +0800, changfengnan wrote:
> 
> > From: "Keith Busch"<[email protected]>
> > Date:  Tue, Jul 21, 2026, 23:11
> > Subject:  Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] nvme-pci: adaptive interrupt coalescing
> > To: "Fengnan Chang"<[email protected]>
> > Cc: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
> > On Tue, Jul 21, 2026 at 04:37:39PM +0800, Fengnan Chang wrote:
> > > @@ -1618,6 +1748,8 @@ static inline bool nvme_poll_cq(struct nvme_queue *nvmeq,
> > >                   * the cqe requires a full read memory barrier
> > >                   */
> > >                  dma_rmb();
> > > +                if (sq_head)
> > > +                        *sq_head = le16_to_cpu(nvmeq->cqes[nvmeq->cq_head].sq_head);
> > 
> > This is the wrong criteria to determine the outstanding depth. The spec
> > allows the controller to move this forward after it has read an entry.
> > The commands may still be in progress, so the depth of future
> > completions to expect can't depend on this value.
> > 
> > But in general, I agree with the spirit of where this is going.
> 
> Thanks for your feedback.  I’d like to hear more opinions from others. 
> If this is the right direction, I’ll continue to improve this patch.
> 
> Hi Jens, Christoph, Sagi: 
> what do you think?

Yes, this is a useful idea, please continue with it if you can.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.