From: Yu Kuai <yukuai@kernel.org>
To: jack@suse.cz, dlemoal@kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yukuai3@huawei.com,
yi.zhang@huawei.com, yangerkun@huawei.com,
johnny.chenyi@huawei.com
Subject: [PATCH v2] blk-ioc: don't hold queue_lock for ioc_lookup_icq()
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2025 02:03:34 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250725180334.40187-1-yukuai@kernel.org> (raw)
From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
Currently issue io can grab queue_lock three times from bfq_bio_merge(),
bfq_limit_depth() and bfq_prepare_request(), the queue_lock is not
necessary if icq is already created because both queue and ioc can't be
freed before io issuing is done, hence remove the unnecessary queue_lock
and use rcu to protect radix tree lookup.
Noted this is also a prep patch to support request batch dispatching[1].
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250722072431.610354-1-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com/
Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
---
changes from v1:
- modify ioc_lookup_icq() directly to get rid of queue_lock
block/bfq-iosched.c | 18 ++----------------
block/blk-ioc.c | 10 +++-------
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
index 0cb1e9873aab..f71ec0887733 100644
--- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
+++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
@@ -454,17 +454,10 @@ static struct bfq_io_cq *icq_to_bic(struct io_cq *icq)
*/
static struct bfq_io_cq *bfq_bic_lookup(struct request_queue *q)
{
- struct bfq_io_cq *icq;
- unsigned long flags;
-
if (!current->io_context)
return NULL;
- spin_lock_irqsave(&q->queue_lock, flags);
- icq = icq_to_bic(ioc_lookup_icq(q));
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->queue_lock, flags);
-
- return icq;
+ return icq_to_bic(ioc_lookup_icq(q));
}
/*
@@ -2457,15 +2450,8 @@ static bool bfq_bio_merge(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio,
unsigned int nr_segs)
{
struct bfq_data *bfqd = q->elevator->elevator_data;
- struct request *free = NULL;
- /*
- * bfq_bic_lookup grabs the queue_lock: invoke it now and
- * store its return value for later use, to avoid nesting
- * queue_lock inside the bfqd->lock. We assume that the bic
- * returned by bfq_bic_lookup does not go away before
- * bfqd->lock is taken.
- */
struct bfq_io_cq *bic = bfq_bic_lookup(q);
+ struct request *free = NULL;
bool ret;
spin_lock_irq(&bfqd->lock);
diff --git a/block/blk-ioc.c b/block/blk-ioc.c
index ce82770c72ab..ea9c975aaef7 100644
--- a/block/blk-ioc.c
+++ b/block/blk-ioc.c
@@ -308,19 +308,18 @@ int __copy_io(unsigned long clone_flags, struct task_struct *tsk)
#ifdef CONFIG_BLK_ICQ
/**
- * ioc_lookup_icq - lookup io_cq from ioc
+ * ioc_lookup_icq - lookup io_cq from ioc in io issue path
* @q: the associated request_queue
*
* Look up io_cq associated with @ioc - @q pair from @ioc. Must be called
- * with @q->queue_lock held.
+ * from io issue path, either return NULL if current issue io to @q for the
+ * first time, or return a valid icq.
*/
struct io_cq *ioc_lookup_icq(struct request_queue *q)
{
struct io_context *ioc = current->io_context;
struct io_cq *icq;
- lockdep_assert_held(&q->queue_lock);
-
/*
* icq's are indexed from @ioc using radix tree and hint pointer,
* both of which are protected with RCU. All removals are done
@@ -419,10 +418,7 @@ struct io_cq *ioc_find_get_icq(struct request_queue *q)
task_unlock(current);
} else {
get_io_context(ioc);
-
- spin_lock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
icq = ioc_lookup_icq(q);
- spin_unlock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
}
if (!icq) {
--
2.43.0
next reply other threads:[~2025-07-25 18:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-07-25 18:03 Yu Kuai [this message]
2025-07-28 3:53 ` [PATCH v2] blk-ioc: don't hold queue_lock for ioc_lookup_icq() Damien Le Moal
2025-07-28 9:28 ` Jan Kara
2025-07-28 17:08 ` Yu Kuai
2025-07-28 21:45 ` Jan Kara
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20250725180334.40187-1-yukuai@kernel.org \
--to=yukuai@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=dlemoal@kernel.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=johnny.chenyi@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yangerkun@huawei.com \
--cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
--cc=yukuai3@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.