From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Nilay Shroff <nilay@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, hch@lst.de, axboe@kernel.dk,
sth@linux.ibm.com, gjoyce@ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 1/2] block: move elevator queue allocation logic into blk_mq_init_sched
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 23:17:29 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aFV7iSUpCdgqX1Sh@fedora> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a1644c15-2a9a-4fc1-a762-b153d167cd1f@linux.ibm.com>
On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 08:09:01PM +0530, Nilay Shroff wrote:
>
>
> On 6/17/25 8:37 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 11:02:25PM +0530, Nilay Shroff wrote:
> >> In preparation for allocating sched_tags before freezing the request
> >> queue and acquiring ->elevator_lock, move the elevator queue allocation
> >> logic from the elevator ops ->init_sched callback into blk_mq_init_sched.
> >>
> >> This refactoring provides a centralized location for elevator queue
> >> initialization, which makes it easier to store pre-allocated sched_tags
> >> in the struct elevator_queue during later changes.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Nilay Shroff <nilay@linux.ibm.com>
> >> ---
>
> [...]
>
> >> diff --git a/block/blk-mq-sched.c b/block/blk-mq-sched.c
> >> index 55a0fd105147..d914eb9d61a6 100644
> >> --- a/block/blk-mq-sched.c
> >> +++ b/block/blk-mq-sched.c
> >> @@ -475,6 +475,10 @@ int blk_mq_init_sched(struct request_queue *q, struct elevator_type *e)
> >> q->nr_requests = 2 * min_t(unsigned int, q->tag_set->queue_depth,
> >> BLKDEV_DEFAULT_RQ);
> >>
> >> + eq = elevator_alloc(q, e);
> >> + if (!eq)
> >> + return -ENOMEM;
> >> +
> >> if (blk_mq_is_shared_tags(flags)) {
> >> ret = blk_mq_init_sched_shared_tags(q);
> >> if (ret)
> >
> > The above failure needs to be handled by kobject_put(&eq->kobj).
>
> I think here the elevator_alloc() failure occurs before we initialize
> eq->kobj. So we don't need to handle it with kobject_put(&eq->kobj)
> and instead simply returning -ENOMEM should be sufficient. Agree?
I meant the failure from blk_mq_init_sched_shared_tags(), which has to
call kobject_put() for correct cleanup.
Thanks,
Ming
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-06-20 15:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-16 17:32 [PATCHv3 0/2] block: move sched_tags allocation/de-allocation outside of locking context Nilay Shroff
2025-06-16 17:32 ` [PATCHv3 1/2] block: move elevator queue allocation logic into blk_mq_init_sched Nilay Shroff
2025-06-17 15:07 ` Ming Lei
2025-06-20 14:39 ` Nilay Shroff
2025-06-20 15:17 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2025-06-20 16:13 ` Nilay Shroff
2025-06-23 5:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-23 9:14 ` Nilay Shroff
2025-06-16 17:32 ` [PATCHv3 2/2] block: fix lock dependency between percpu alloc lock and elevator lock Nilay Shroff
2025-06-18 3:06 ` Ming Lei
2025-06-18 6:52 ` Nilay Shroff
2025-06-23 6:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-06-23 9:33 ` Nilay Shroff
2025-06-23 13:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
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=aFV7iSUpCdgqX1Sh@fedora \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=gjoyce@ibm.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nilay@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=sth@linux.ibm.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