On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 04:28:28PM +0800, John Garry wrote:
> Refactor blk_mq_free_map_and_requests() such that it can be used at many
> sites at which the tag map and rqs are freed.
>
> Also rename to blk_mq_free_map_and_rqs(), which is shorter and matches the
> alloc equivalent.
>
> Suggested-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> block/blk-mq-tag.c | 3 +--
> block/blk-mq.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> block/blk-mq.h | 4 +++-
> 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.c b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
> index db99f1246795..a0ecc6d88f84 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq-tag.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
> @@ -607,8 +607,7 @@ int blk_mq_tag_update_depth(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> if (!new)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> - blk_mq_free_rqs(set, *tagsptr, hctx->queue_num);
> - blk_mq_free_rq_map(*tagsptr, set->flags);
> + blk_mq_free_map_and_rqs(set, *tagsptr, hctx->queue_num);
> *tagsptr = new;
> } else {
> /*
> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
> index 46772773b9c4..464ea20b9bcb 100644
> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
> @@ -2878,15 +2878,15 @@ static bool __blk_mq_alloc_map_and_rqs(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set,
> return set->tags[hctx_idx];
> }
>
> -static void blk_mq_free_map_and_requests(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set,
> - unsigned int hctx_idx)
> +void blk_mq_free_map_and_rqs(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set,
> + struct blk_mq_tags *tags,
> + unsigned int hctx_idx)
> {
> unsigned int flags = set->flags;
>
> - if (set->tags && set->tags[hctx_idx]) {
> - blk_mq_free_rqs(set, set->tags[hctx_idx], hctx_idx);
> - blk_mq_free_rq_map(set->tags[hctx_idx], flags);
> - set->tags[hctx_idx] = NULL;
> + if (tags) {
> + blk_mq_free_rqs(set, tags, hctx_idx);
> + blk_mq_free_rq_map(tags, flags);
> }
> }
>
> @@ -2967,8 +2967,10 @@ static void blk_mq_map_swqueue(struct request_queue *q)
> * fallback in case of a new remap fails
> * allocation
> */
> - if (i && set->tags[i])
> - blk_mq_free_map_and_requests(set, i);
> + if (i && set->tags[i]) {
> + blk_mq_free_map_and_rqs(set, set->tags[i], i);
> + set->tags[i] = NULL;
> + }
>
> hctx->tags = NULL;
> continue;
> @@ -3264,8 +3266,8 @@ static void blk_mq_realloc_hw_ctxs(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set,
> struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx = hctxs[j];
>
> if (hctx) {
> - if (hctx->tags)
> - blk_mq_free_map_and_requests(set, j);
> + blk_mq_free_map_and_rqs(set, set->tags[j], j);
> + set->tags[j] = NULL;
> blk_mq_exit_hctx(q, set, hctx, j);
> hctxs[j] = NULL;
> }
> @@ -3361,8 +3363,10 @@ static int __blk_mq_alloc_rq_maps(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set)
> return 0;
>
> out_unwind:
> - while (--i >= 0)
> - blk_mq_free_map_and_requests(set, i);
> + while (--i >= 0) {
> + blk_mq_free_map_and_rqs(set, set->tags[i], i);
> + set->tags[i] = NULL;
> + }
>
> return -ENOMEM;
> }
> @@ -3557,8 +3561,10 @@ int blk_mq_alloc_tag_set(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set)
> return 0;
>
> out_free_mq_rq_maps:
> - for (i = 0; i < set->nr_hw_queues; i++)
> - blk_mq_free_map_and_requests(set, i);
> + for (i = 0; i < set->nr_hw_queues; i++) {
> + blk_mq_free_map_and_rqs(set, set->tags[i], i);
> + set->tags[i] = NULL;
> + }
> out_free_mq_map:
> for (i = 0; i < set->nr_maps; i++) {
> kfree(set->map[i].mq_map);
> @@ -3590,8 +3596,10 @@ void blk_mq_free_tag_set(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set)
> {
> int i, j;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < set->nr_hw_queues; i++)
> - blk_mq_free_map_and_requests(set, i);
> + for (i = 0; i < set->nr_hw_queues; i++) {
> + blk_mq_free_map_and_rqs(set, set->tags[i], i);
> + set->tags[i] = NULL;
> + }
There are 5 callers in which 'set->tags[i]' is cleared, so just
wondering why you don't clear set->tags[i] at default in
blk_mq_free_map_and_rqs(). And just call __blk_mq_free_map_and_rqs()
for the only other user?
Thanks,
Ming
