From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: axboe@kernel.dk, vgoyal@redhat.com
Cc: ctalbott@google.com, rni@google.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 3/9] block: restructure get_request()
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:37:52 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1329431878-28300-4-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1329431878-28300-1-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org>
get_request() is structured a bit unusually in that failure path is
inlined in the usual flow with goto labels atop and inside it.
Relocate the error path to the end of the function.
This is to prepare for icq handling changes in get_request() and
doesn't introduce any behavior change.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
---
block/blk-core.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
1 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
index bf06d1d..69fa8c4 100644
--- a/block/blk-core.c
+++ b/block/blk-core.c
@@ -825,7 +825,7 @@ static bool blk_rq_should_init_elevator(struct bio *bio)
static struct request *get_request(struct request_queue *q, int rw_flags,
struct bio *bio, gfp_t gfp_mask)
{
- struct request *rq = NULL;
+ struct request *rq;
struct request_list *rl = &q->rq;
struct elevator_type *et;
struct io_context *ioc;
@@ -877,7 +877,7 @@ retry:
* process is not a "batcher", and not
* exempted by the IO scheduler
*/
- goto out;
+ return NULL;
}
}
}
@@ -890,7 +890,7 @@ retry:
* allocated with any setting of ->nr_requests
*/
if (rl->count[is_sync] >= (3 * q->nr_requests / 2))
- goto out;
+ return NULL;
rl->count[is_sync]++;
rl->starved[is_sync] = 0;
@@ -920,36 +920,12 @@ retry:
if ((rw_flags & REQ_ELVPRIV) && unlikely(et->icq_cache && !icq)) {
icq = ioc_create_icq(q, gfp_mask);
if (!icq)
- goto fail_icq;
+ goto fail_alloc;
}
rq = blk_alloc_request(q, icq, rw_flags, gfp_mask);
-
-fail_icq:
- if (unlikely(!rq)) {
- /*
- * Allocation failed presumably due to memory. Undo anything
- * we might have messed up.
- *
- * Allocating task should really be put onto the front of the
- * wait queue, but this is pretty rare.
- */
- spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock);
- freed_request(q, rw_flags);
-
- /*
- * in the very unlikely event that allocation failed and no
- * requests for this direction was pending, mark us starved
- * so that freeing of a request in the other direction will
- * notice us. another possible fix would be to split the
- * rq mempool into READ and WRITE
- */
-rq_starved:
- if (unlikely(rl->count[is_sync] == 0))
- rl->starved[is_sync] = 1;
-
- goto out;
- }
+ if (unlikely(!rq))
+ goto fail_alloc;
/*
* ioc may be NULL here, and ioc_batching will be false. That's
@@ -961,8 +937,30 @@ rq_starved:
ioc->nr_batch_requests--;
trace_block_getrq(q, bio, rw_flags & 1);
-out:
return rq;
+
+fail_alloc:
+ /*
+ * Allocation failed presumably due to memory. Undo anything we
+ * might have messed up.
+ *
+ * Allocating task should really be put onto the front of the wait
+ * queue, but this is pretty rare.
+ */
+ spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock);
+ freed_request(q, rw_flags);
+
+ /*
+ * in the very unlikely event that allocation failed and no
+ * requests for this direction was pending, mark us starved so that
+ * freeing of a request in the other direction will notice
+ * us. another possible fix would be to split the rq mempool into
+ * READ and WRITE
+ */
+rq_starved:
+ if (unlikely(rl->count[is_sync] == 0))
+ rl->starved[is_sync] = 1;
+ return NULL;
}
/**
--
1.7.7.3
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-16 22:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-16 22:37 [PATCHSET] blkcg: update locking and fix stacking Tejun Heo
2012-02-16 22:37 ` [PATCH 1/9] blkcg: use double locking instead of RCU for blkg synchronization Tejun Heo
2012-02-16 22:37 ` [PATCH 2/9] blkcg: drop unnecessary RCU locking Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 16:19 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-17 17:07 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 17:14 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 16:47 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-17 17:11 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 17:28 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-17 17:43 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 18:08 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-17 18:16 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-22 0:49 ` [PATCH UPDATED " Tejun Heo
2012-02-16 22:37 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2012-02-16 22:37 ` [PATCH 4/9] block: interface update for ioc/icq creation functions Tejun Heo
2012-02-16 22:37 ` [PATCH 5/9] block: ioc_task_link() can't fail Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 20:41 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-17 22:18 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-16 22:37 ` [PATCH 6/9] block: add io_context->active_ref Tejun Heo
2012-02-16 22:37 ` [PATCH 7/9] block: implement bio_associate_current() Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 1:19 ` Kent Overstreet
2012-02-17 22:14 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 22:34 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-17 22:41 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 22:51 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-17 22:57 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-20 14:22 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-20 16:59 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-20 19:14 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-20 21:21 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-27 23:12 ` Chris Wright
2012-02-28 14:10 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-28 17:01 ` Chris Wright
2012-02-28 20:11 ` Stefan Hajnoczi
2012-02-20 14:36 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-20 17:01 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-20 19:16 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-20 21:06 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-20 21:10 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-17 22:56 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-17 23:06 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 21:33 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-17 22:03 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 22:29 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-17 22:38 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 22:42 ` Tejun Heo
2012-02-16 22:37 ` [PATCH 8/9] block: make block cgroup policies follow bio task association Tejun Heo
2012-02-16 22:37 ` [PATCH 9/9] block: make blk-throttle preserve the issuing task on delayed bios Tejun Heo
2012-02-17 21:58 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-02-17 22:17 ` Tejun Heo
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=1329431878-28300-4-git-send-email-tj@kernel.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=ctalbott@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rni@google.com \
--cc=vgoyal@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).