Don't pass in the hardware queue to __dd_dispatch_request(), since it
leads the reader to believe that we are returning a request for that
specific hardware queue. That's not how mq-deadline works, the state
for determining which request to serve next is shared across all
hardware queues for a device.
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
---
diff --git a/block/mq-deadline.c b/block/mq-deadline.c
index d56972e8ebda..c56f211c8440 100644
--- a/block/mq-deadline.c
+++ b/block/mq-deadline.c
@@ -267,9 +267,8 @@ deadline_next_request(struct deadline_data *dd, int data_dir)
* deadline_dispatch_requests selects the best request according to
* read/write expire, fifo_batch, etc
*/
-static struct request *__dd_dispatch_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
+static struct request *__dd_dispatch_request(struct deadline_data *dd)
{
- struct deadline_data *dd = hctx->queue->elevator->elevator_data;
struct request *rq, *next_rq;
bool reads, writes;
int data_dir;
@@ -372,13 +371,19 @@ static struct request *__dd_dispatch_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
return rq;
}
+/*
+ * One confusing aspect here is that we get called for a specific
+ * hardware queue, but we return a request that may not be for a
+ * different hardware queue. This is because mq-deadline has shared
+ * state for all hardware queues, in terms of sorting, FIFOs, etc.
+ */
static struct request *dd_dispatch_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
{
struct deadline_data *dd = hctx->queue->elevator->elevator_data;
struct request *rq;
spin_lock(&dd->lock);
- rq = __dd_dispatch_request(hctx);
+ rq = __dd_dispatch_request(dd);
spin_unlock(&dd->lock);
return rq;
--
Jens Axboe
