On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 10:38:49AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 10:15:41AM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 09:59:04PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > +static int blk_mq_create_mq_map(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set,
> > > + const struct cpumask *affinity_mask)
> > > +{
> > > + int queue = -1, cpu = 0;
> > > +
> > > + set->mq_map = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*set->mq_map) * nr_cpu_ids,
> > > + GFP_KERNEL, set->numa_node);
> > > + if (!set->mq_map)
> > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > +
> > > + if (!affinity_mask)
> > > + return 0; /* map all cpus to queue 0 */
> > > +
> > > + /* If cpus are offline, map them to first hctx */
> > > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > > + if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, affinity_mask))
> > > + queue++;
> >
> > CPUs missing in an affinity mask are mapped to hctxs. Is that intended?
>
> Yes - each CPU needs to be mapped to some hctx, otherwise we can't
> submit I/O from that CPU.
>
> > > + if (queue > 0)
> >
> > Why this check?
> >
> > > + set->mq_map[cpu] = queue;
>
> mq_map is initialized to zero already, so we don't really need the
> assignment for queue 0. The reason why this check exists is because
> we start with queue = -1 and we never want to assignment -1 to mq_map.
Would this read better then?
int queue = 0;
...
/* If cpus are offline, map them to first hctx */
for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
set->mq_map[cpu] = queue;
if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, affinity_mask))
queue++;
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
