On 09/27/2016 09:31 AM, Steve Wise wrote:
@@ -2079,11 +2075,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nvme_kill_queues);
void nvme_stop_queues(struct nvme_ctrl *ctrl)
{
struct nvme_ns *ns;
+ struct request_queue *q;
mutex_lock(&ctrl->namespaces_mutex);
list_for_each_entry(ns, &ctrl->namespaces, list) {
- blk_mq_cancel_requeue_work(ns->queue);
- blk_mq_stop_hw_queues(ns->queue);
+ q = ns->queue;
+ blk_quiesce_queue(q);
+ blk_mq_cancel_requeue_work(q);
+ blk_mq_stop_hw_queues(q);
+ blk_resume_queue(q);
}
mutex_unlock(&ctrl->namespaces_mutex);
Hey Bart, should nvme_stop_queues() really be resuming the blk queue?
Hello Steve,
Would you perhaps prefer that blk_resume_queue(q) is called from
nvme_start_queues()? I think that would make the NVMe code harder to
review. The above code won't cause any unexpected side effects if an
NVMe namespace is removed after nvme_stop_queues() has been called and
before nvme_start_queues() is called. Moving the blk_resume_queue(q)
call into nvme_start_queues() will only work as expected if no
namespaces are added nor removed between the nvme_stop_queues() and
nvme_start_queues() calls. I'm not familiar enough with the NVMe code to
know whether or not this change is safe ...
Bart.
--
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
