Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] Improving Zoned Storage Support

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 1/17/24 13:14, Jens Axboe wrote:
  /* Maps an I/O priority class to a deadline scheduler priority. */
@@ -600,6 +604,10 @@ static struct request *dd_dispatch_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
  	struct request *rq;
  	enum dd_prio prio;
+ if (test_bit(0, &dd->dispatch_state) ||
+	    test_and_set_bit(0, &dd->dispatch_state))
+		return NULL;
+
  	spin_lock(&dd->lock);
  	rq = dd_dispatch_prio_aged_requests(dd, now);
  	if (rq)
@@ -616,6 +624,7 @@ static struct request *dd_dispatch_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
  	}
unlock:
+	clear_bit(0, &dd->dispatch_state);
  	spin_unlock(&dd->lock);

Can the above code be simplified by using spin_trylock() instead of
test_bit() and test_and_set_bit()?

Please note that whether or not spin_trylock() is used, there is a
race condition in this approach: if dd_dispatch_request() is called
just before another CPU calls spin_unlock() from inside dd_dispatch_request() then some requests won't be dispatched until
the next time dd_dispatch_request() is called.

Thanks,

Bart.





[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [IDE]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux