Hi Jens Axboe, Excuse me, do you have any comments about this patch set from Bart Van Assche, We meet this "warning issue" about async_depth, more detail info is in: https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAHJ8P3KEOC_DXQmZK3u7PHgZFmWpMVzPa6pgkOgpyoH7wgT5nw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ please help consider it and it can solve the above warning issue. Thanks. Attach The following commit msg from Bart Van Assche https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240403212354.523925-1-bvanassche@xxxxxxx/#R -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx> 发送时间: 2024年4月6日 4:05 收件人: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> 抄送: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>; linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@xxxxxxxxxx>; 牛志国 (Zhiguo Niu) <Zhiguo.Niu@xxxxxxxxxx> 主题: Re: [PATCH 1/2] block: Call .limit_depth() after .hctx has been set 注意: 这封邮件来自于外部。除非你确定邮件内容安全，否则不要点击任何链接和附件。 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. On 4/5/24 01:46, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Calling limit_depth with the hctx set make sense, but the way it's > done looks odd. Why not something like this? > > diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c index > b8dbfed8b28be1..88886fd93b1a9c 100644 > --- a/block/blk-mq.c > +++ b/block/blk-mq.c > @@ -448,6 +448,10 @@ static struct request *__blk_mq_alloc_requests(struct blk_mq_alloc_data *data) > if (data->cmd_flags & REQ_NOWAIT) > data->flags |= BLK_MQ_REQ_NOWAIT; > > +retry: > + data->ctx = blk_mq_get_ctx(q); > + data->hctx = blk_mq_map_queue(q, data->cmd_flags, data->ctx); > + > if (q->elevator) { > /* > * All requests use scheduler tags when an I/O scheduler > is @@ -469,13 +473,9 @@ static struct request *__blk_mq_alloc_requests(struct blk_mq_alloc_data *data) > if (ops->limit_depth) > ops->limit_depth(data->cmd_flags, data); > } > - } > - > -retry: > - data->ctx = blk_mq_get_ctx(q); > - data->hctx = blk_mq_map_queue(q, data->cmd_flags, data->ctx); > - if (!(data->rq_flags & RQF_SCHED_TAGS)) > + } else { > blk_mq_tag_busy(data->hctx); > + } > > if (data->flags & BLK_MQ_REQ_RESERVED) > data->rq_flags |= RQF_RESV; Hi Christoph, The above patch looks good to me and I'm fine with replacing patch 1/2 with the above patch. Do you want me to add your Signed-off-by to the above patch? Thanks, Bart.
