From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: Bart Van Assche To: "linux-block@vger.kernel.org" , "axboe@kernel.dk" CC: "brking@linux.vnet.ibm.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] blk-mq: enable checking two part inflight counts at the same time Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2017 21:29:25 +0000 Message-ID: <1501795764.2922.26.camel@wdc.com> References: <1501790516-6924-1-git-send-email-axboe@kernel.dk> <1501790516-6924-5-git-send-email-axboe@kernel.dk> In-Reply-To: <1501790516-6924-5-git-send-email-axboe@kernel.dk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 List-ID: On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 14:01 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > static void blk_mq_check_inflight(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, > @@ -97,17 +98,25 @@ static void blk_mq_check_inflight(struct blk_mq_hw_ct= x *hctx, > { > struct mq_inflight *mi =3D priv; > =20 > - if (rq->part =3D=3D mi->part) > - mi->inflight++; > + if (!test_bit(REQ_ATOM_STARTED, &rq->atomic_flags)) > + return; Should the REQ_ATOM_STARTED test perhaps have been introduced in patch 3/4 instead of in this patch? > + if (rq->part =3D=3D mi->part1) { > + mi->inflight[0]++; > + if (mi->part1->partno && > + &part_to_disk(mi->part1)->part0 =3D=3D mi->part2) > + mi->inflight[1]++; > + } else if (rq->part =3D=3D mi->part2) > + mi->inflight[1]++; > } So mi->part2 may represent part0 but mi->part1 not? Does that deserve a com= ment? Additionally, shouldn't the mi->part2 =3D=3D part0 test be moved out of the= if-statement such that all requests are counted for part0 instead of storing the same co= unt in inflight[0] and inflight[1] if mi->part2 =3D=3D part0? > -unsigned int blk_mq_in_flight(struct request_queue *q, > - struct hd_struct *part) > +void blk_mq_in_flight(struct request_queue *q, struct hd_struct *part1, > + struct hd_struct *part2, unsigned int *inflight) > { Should inflight be declared as an array to make it clear that it is a point= er to an array with two elements? Thanks, Bart.=