[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121106113428.GA19182@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 19:34:28 +0800
From: Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>
To: axboe@...nel.dk
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: block CFQ: avoid moving request to different queue
request is queued in cfqq->fifo list. Looks it's possible we are moving a
request from one cfqq to another in request merge case. In such case, adjusting
the fifo list order doesn't make sense and is impossible if we don't iterate
the whole fifo list.
My test does hit one case the two cfqq are different, but didn't cause kernel
crash, maybe it's because fifo list isn't used frequently. Anyway, from the
code logic, this is buggy.
I thought we can re-enable the recusive merge logic after this is fixed.
Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@...ionio.com>
---
block/cfq-iosched.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux/block/cfq-iosched.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/block/cfq-iosched.c 2012-08-29 16:18:35.339907814 +0800
+++ linux/block/cfq-iosched.c 2012-11-06 19:26:05.575446275 +0800
@@ -1973,7 +1973,8 @@ cfq_merged_requests(struct request_queue
* reposition in fifo if next is older than rq
*/
if (!list_empty(&rq->queuelist) && !list_empty(&next->queuelist) &&
- time_before(rq_fifo_time(next), rq_fifo_time(rq))) {
+ time_before(rq_fifo_time(next), rq_fifo_time(rq)) &&
+ cfqq == RQ_CFQQ(next)) {
list_move(&rq->queuelist, &next->queuelist);
rq_set_fifo_time(rq, rq_fifo_time(next));
}
--
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