Hello, Breno. On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 08:07:14AM -0800, Breno Leitao wrote: > diff --git a/block/blk-iocost.c b/block/blk-iocost.c > index ff534e9d92dc..6cced8a76e9c 100644 > --- a/block/blk-iocost.c > +++ b/block/blk-iocost.c > @@ -2878,11 +2878,6 @@ static int blk_iocost_init(struct gendisk *disk) > atomic64_set(&ioc->cur_period, 0); > atomic_set(&ioc->hweight_gen, 0); > > - spin_lock_irq(&ioc->lock); > - ioc->autop_idx = AUTOP_INVALID; > - ioc_refresh_params(ioc, true); > - spin_unlock_irq(&ioc->lock); > - > /* > * rqos must be added before activation to allow ioc_pd_init() to > * lookup the ioc from q. This means that the rqos methods may get > @@ -2893,6 +2888,11 @@ static int blk_iocost_init(struct gendisk *disk) > if (ret) > goto err_free_ioc; > > + spin_lock_irq(&ioc->lock); > + ioc->autop_idx = AUTOP_INVALID; > + ioc_refresh_params(ioc, true); > + spin_unlock_irq(&ioc->lock); > + I'm a bit worried about registering the rqos before ioc_refresh_params() as that initializes all the internal parameters and letting IOs flow through without initializing them can lead to subtle issues. Can you please instead explicitly pass @q into ioc_refresh_params() (and explain why we need it passed explicitly in the function comment)? Thanks. -- tejun
