[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c40b8d4a-c504-fdf4-0b96-64aaeb167435@applied-asynchrony.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 16:56:24 +0100
From: Holger Hoffstätte <holger@...lied-asynchrony.com>
To: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block/bfq: fix ifdef for CONFIG_BFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED=y
On 3/29/19 3:01 PM, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> Replace BFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED_ENABLED with CONFIG_BFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED.
> Code under these ifdefs never worked, something might be broken.
>
> Fixes: 0471559c2fbd ("block, bfq: add/remove entity weights correctly")
> Fixes: 73d58118498b ("block, bfq: consider also ioprio classes in symmetry detection")
> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>
> ---
> block/bfq-iosched.c | 2 +-
> block/bfq-wf2q.c | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
> index 4c592496a16a..fac188dd78fa 100644
> --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
> +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
> @@ -674,7 +674,7 @@ static bool bfq_symmetric_scenario(struct bfq_data *bfqd)
> * at least two nodes.
> */
> return !(varied_queue_weights || multiple_classes_busy
> -#ifdef BFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED_ENABLED
> +#ifdef CONFIG_BFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED
> || bfqd->num_groups_with_pending_reqs > 0
> #endif
> );
> diff --git a/block/bfq-wf2q.c b/block/bfq-wf2q.c
> index 63311d1ff1ed..a11bef75483d 100644
> --- a/block/bfq-wf2q.c
> +++ b/block/bfq-wf2q.c
> @@ -1012,7 +1012,7 @@ static void __bfq_activate_entity(struct bfq_entity *entity,
> entity->on_st = true;
> }
>
> -#ifdef BFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED_ENABLED
> +#ifdef CONFIG_BFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED
> if (!bfq_entity_to_bfqq(entity)) { /* bfq_group */
> struct bfq_group *bfqg =
> container_of(entity, struct bfq_group, entity);
>
>
Good catch! I run without group scheduling and therefore didn't notice these
stray defines earlier. For 5.1 it should merge cleanly; adding this on top of
the pending 5.2 BFQ patches required a small context fixup in hunk #1 due to
"block, bfq: do not idle for lowest-weight queues".
Reviewed-by: Holger Hoffstätte <holger@...lied-asynchrony.com>
cheers,
Holger
Powered by blists - more mailing lists