On 31/05/2019 03:27, Ming Lei wrote:
index 32b8ad3d341b..49d73d979cb3 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq.c
@@ -2433,6 +2433,11 @@ static bool __blk_mq_alloc_rq_map(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set, int hctx_idx)
{
int ret = 0;
Hi Ming,
+ if ((set->flags & BLK_MQ_F_HOST_TAGS) && hctx_idx) {
+ set->tags[hctx_idx] = set->tags[0];
Here we set all tags same as that of hctx index 0.
+ return true;
As such, I think that the error handling in __blk_mq_alloc_rq_maps() is
made a little fragile:
__blk_mq_alloc_rq_maps(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < set->nr_hw_queues; i++)
if (!__blk_mq_alloc_rq_map(set, i))
goto out_unwind;
return 0;
out_unwind:
while (--i >= 0)
blk_mq_free_rq_map(set->tags[i]);
return -ENOMEM;
}
If __blk_mq_alloc_rq_map(, i > 1) fails for when BLK_MQ_F_HOST_TAGS FLAG
is set (even though today it can't), then we would try to free
set->tags[0] multiple times.
+ }
+
set->tags[hctx_idx] = blk_mq_alloc_rq_map(set, hctx_idx,
set->queue_depth, set->reserved_tags);
Thanks,
John
if (!set->tags[hctx_idx])
@@ -2451,6 +2456,9 @@ static bool __blk_mq_alloc_rq_map(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set, int hctx_idx)
static void blk_mq_free_map_and_requests(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set,