On 17/11/21 01:15, Shaohua Li wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:00:27AM +0800, Joseph Qi wrote:
>> From: Joseph Qi <qijiang.qj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> dm device set QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT in resume, which is after register
>> queue. That is to mean, the previous initialization in
>> blk_throtl_register_queue is wrong in this case.
>> Fix it by checking and then updating the info during root tg
>> initialization as we don't have a better choice.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Joseph Qi <qijiang.qj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> block/blk-throttle.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
>> index bf52035..6d6b220 100644
>> --- a/block/blk-throttle.c
>> +++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
>> @@ -541,6 +541,23 @@ static void throtl_pd_init(struct blkg_policy_data *pd)
>> if (cgroup_subsys_on_dfl(io_cgrp_subsys) && blkg->parent)
>> sq->parent_sq = &blkg_to_tg(blkg->parent)->service_queue;
>> tg->td = td;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * dm device set QUEUE_FLAG_NONROT in resume, which is after resister
>> + * queue, so the previous initialization is wrong in this case. Check
>> + * and update it here.
>> + */
>> + if (blk_queue_nonrot(blkg->q) &&
>> + td->filtered_latency != LATENCY_FILTERED_SSD) {
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + td->throtl_slice = DFL_THROTL_SLICE_SSD;
>
> if CONFIG_BLK_DEV_THROTTLING_LOW isn't not set, we use old slice, can you do
> the same thing here? Otherwise,
> Reviewed-by: Shaohua Li <shli@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
Sure, I will update and resend it. Thanks for pointing this out.
Thanks,
Joseph
>> + td->filtered_latency = LATENCY_FILTERED_SSD;
>> + for (i = 0; i < LATENCY_BUCKET_SIZE; i++) {
>> + td->avg_buckets[READ][i].latency = 0;
>> + td->avg_buckets[WRITE][i].latency = 0;
>> + }
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> --
>> 1.9.4
