Hi, Tejun
在 2022/08/24 2:34, Tejun Heo 写道:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 09:38:10AM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>
Now that throtl_dequeue_tg() is called when the last bio is dispatched,
there is no need to check the flag THROTL_TG_PENDING, since it's ensured
to be set when bio is throttled.
There are no functional changes.
Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
block/blk-throttle.c | 11 ++++-------
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
index 47142a1dd102..e47506a8ef47 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.c
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
@@ -570,14 +570,11 @@ static void throtl_enqueue_tg(struct throtl_grp *tg)
static void throtl_dequeue_tg(struct throtl_grp *tg)
{
- if (tg->flags & THROTL_TG_PENDING) {
- struct throtl_service_queue *parent_sq =
- tg->service_queue.parent_sq;
+ struct throtl_service_queue *parent_sq = tg->service_queue.parent_sq;
- throtl_rb_erase(&tg->rb_node, parent_sq);
- --parent_sq->nr_pending;
- tg->flags &= ~THROTL_TG_PENDING;
- }
+ throtl_rb_erase(&tg->rb_node, parent_sq);
+ --parent_sq->nr_pending;
+ tg->flags &= ~THROTL_TG_PENDING;
Yeah, I don't know about this one. This breaks the symmetry with
throtl_enqueue_tg() and it's a bit odd that we aren't at least
WARN_ON_ONCE() on the flag given what the flag tracks. If you want to do
this, I think the prev approach of just removing the flag is better as that
was symmetric at least.
Yes, you are right, thanks for the advice. Since now it's a bit
ambivalent, we might as well just remove this patch?
Thanks,
Kuai
Thanks.
