On 01/08/2018 08:15 PM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Currently, blk-mq protects only the issue path with RCU. This patch
> puts the completion path under the same RCU protection. This will be
> used to synchronize issue/completion against timeout by later patches,
> which will also add the comments.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> block/blk-mq.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> index ddc9261..6741c3e 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> @@ -584,11 +584,16 @@ static void hctx_lock(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, int *srcu_idx)
> void blk_mq_complete_request(struct request *rq)
> {
> struct request_queue *q = rq->q;
> + struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx = blk_mq_map_queue(q, rq->mq_ctx->cpu);
> + int srcu_idx;
>
> if (unlikely(blk_should_fake_timeout(q)))
> return;
> +
> + hctx_lock(hctx, &srcu_idx);
> if (!blk_mark_rq_complete(rq))
> __blk_mq_complete_request(rq);
> + hctx_unlock(hctx, srcu_idx);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(blk_mq_complete_request);
>
>
Hmm. Why do we need to call blk_mq_map_queue() here?
Is there a chance that we end up with a _different_ hctx on completion
than that one used for submission?
If not, why can't we just keep a pointer to the hctx in struct request?
Cheers,
Hannes
--
Dr. Hannes Reinecke Teamlead Storage & Networking
hare@xxxxxxx +49 911 74053 688
SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
