On 2/26/23 9:55 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > 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)? Sorry missed this, I'll drop it for now. -- Jens Axboe
