[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20221013135321.174-1-Yuwei.Guan@zeekrlife.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2022 21:53:21 +0800
From: Yuwei Guan <ssawgyw@...il.com>
To: paolo.valente@...aro.org, axboe@...nel.dk, jack@...e.cz
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Yuwei.Guan@...krlife.com
Subject: [PATCH] bfq: do try insert merge before bfq_init_rq() call
It's useless to do bfq_init_rq(rq), if the rq can do merge first.
In the patch 5f550ede5edf8, it moved to bfq_init_rq() before
blk_mq_sched_try_insert_merge(), but it's pointless,
as the fifo_time of next is not set yet,
and !list_empty(&next->queuelist) is 0, so it does not
need to reposition rq's fifo_time.
And for the "hash lookup, try again" situation, as follow,
bfq_requests_merged() call can work normally.
blk_mq_sched_try_insert_merge
elv_attempt_insert_merge
elv_rqhash_find
Signed-off-by: Yuwei Guan <Yuwei.Guan@...krlife.com>
---
block/bfq-iosched.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
index 7ea427817f7f..9845370a701c 100644
--- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
+++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
@@ -6147,7 +6147,7 @@ static void bfq_insert_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, struct request *rq,
bfqg_stats_update_legacy_io(q, rq);
#endif
spin_lock_irq(&bfqd->lock);
- bfqq = bfq_init_rq(rq);
+
if (blk_mq_sched_try_insert_merge(q, rq, &free)) {
spin_unlock_irq(&bfqd->lock);
blk_mq_free_requests(&free);
@@ -6156,6 +6156,7 @@ static void bfq_insert_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, struct request *rq,
trace_block_rq_insert(rq);
+ bfqq = bfq_init_rq(rq);
if (!bfqq || at_head) {
if (at_head)
list_add(&rq->queuelist, &bfqd->dispatch);
--
2.34.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists