[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120315170100.GF3253@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:01:00 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH block/for-3.4/core] cfq: fix cfqg ref handling when
BLK_CGROUP && !CFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 09:50:57AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > [..]
> > > @@ -3533,7 +3551,7 @@ static int cfq_init_queue(struct request
> > >
> > > spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock);
> > > cfq_link_cfqq_cfqg(&cfqd->oom_cfqq, cfqd->root_group);
> > > - blkg_put(cfqg_to_blkg(cfqd->root_group));
> > > + cfqg_put(cfqd->root_group);
> >
> > This seems to be a spurious cfqg_put()? Which reference we are putting
> > down here?
>
> The extra ref from cfq_link_cfqq_cfqg() for oom_cfqq; otherwise, we
> need an extra cfq_put() in cfq_exit_queue(). I thought I wrote
> comment about that somewhere. Hmmm.... apparently not. The thing is
> that oom_cfqq doesn't go through proper cfqq destruction and thus
> never puts the extra ref to root cfqg.
Ok. Is cfq_exit_queue() a better place to put down this reference
explicitly with a comment. Even if you keep it here, atleast a comment
is required. It is not obvious at all (atleast to me).
Thanks
Vivek
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists