From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-mq: streamline handling of q->mq_ops->queue_rq result
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 13:54:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200701125409.GA13335@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200701101617.2434985-1-ming.lei@redhat.com>
On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 06:16:17PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> Current handling of q->mq_ops->queue_rq result is a bit ugly:
>
> - two branches which needs to 'continue' have to check if the
> dispatch local list is empty, otherwise one bad request may
> be retrieved via 'rq = list_first_entry(list, struct request, queuelist);'
>
> - the branch of 'if (unlikely(ret != BLK_STS_OK))' isn't easy
> to follow, since it is actually one error branch.
>
> Streamline this handling, so the code becomes more readable, meantime
> potential kernel oops can be avoided in case that the last request in
> local dispatch list is failed.
I don't really find that much easier to read. If we want to clean
this up for rea we should use a proper switch statement. Something like
this:
diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
index a9aa6d1e44cf32..f3721f274b800e 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq.c
@@ -1275,30 +1275,28 @@ bool blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(struct request_queue *q, struct list_head *list,
}
ret = q->mq_ops->queue_rq(hctx, &bd);
- if (ret == BLK_STS_RESOURCE || ret == BLK_STS_DEV_RESOURCE) {
- blk_mq_handle_dev_resource(rq, list);
+ switch (ret) {
+ case BLK_STS_OK:
+ queued++;
break;
- } else if (ret == BLK_STS_ZONE_RESOURCE) {
+ case BLK_STS_RESOURCE:
+ case BLK_STS_DEV_RESOURCE:
+ blk_mq_handle_dev_resource(rq, list);
+ goto out;
+ case BLK_STS_ZONE_RESOURCE:
/*
* Move the request to zone_list and keep going through
* the dispatch list to find more requests the drive can
* accept.
*/
blk_mq_handle_zone_resource(rq, &zone_list);
- if (list_empty(list))
- break;
- continue;
- }
-
- if (unlikely(ret != BLK_STS_OK)) {
+ break;
+ default:
errors++;
blk_mq_end_request(rq, BLK_STS_IOERR);
- continue;
}
-
- queued++;
} while (!list_empty(list));
-
+out:
if (!list_empty(&zone_list))
list_splice_tail_init(&zone_list, list);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-01 12:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-01 10:16 [PATCH] blk-mq: streamline handling of q->mq_ops->queue_rq result Ming Lei
2020-07-01 12:54 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2020-07-01 12:58 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2020-07-01 13:51 ` Ming Lei
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=20200701125409.GA13335@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox