> -static void hctx_unlock(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, int srcu_idx)
> - __releases(hctx->srcu)
> +static void hctx_unlock(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> {
> if (!(hctx->flags & BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING))
> rcu_read_unlock();
> else
> - srcu_read_unlock(hctx->srcu, srcu_idx);
> + percpu_ref_put(&hctx->queue->dispatch_counter);
While you're at it: can we avoid the pointless inversion in the if
statement and just do:
if (hctx->flags & BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING)
percpu_ref_put(&hctx->queue->dispatch_counter);
else
rcu_read_unlock();
> +static inline bool hctx_lock(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> {
> if (!(hctx->flags & BLK_MQ_F_BLOCKING)) {
> - /* shut up gcc false positive */
> - *srcu_idx = 0;
> rcu_read_lock();
> + return true;
> } else
> - *srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(hctx->srcu);
> + return percpu_ref_tryget_live(&hctx->queue->dispatch_counter);
> }
Same here.
Otherwise this looks good to me, but did you do a deep audit that all
the new hctx_lock() failure cases don't cause problems?
