[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20221101093417.10540-15-shikemeng@huawei.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2022 17:34:11 +0800
From: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...wei.com>
To: <paolo.valente@...aro.org>, <axboe@...nel.dk>
CC: <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<shikemeng@...wei.com>
Subject: [PATCH 14/20] block, bfq: remove redundant oom_bfqq check for bfqq from bfq_find_close_cooperator
The oom_bfqq is never added to tree in bfq_pos_tree_add_move, so bfqq
returned from bfq_find_close_cooperator is no need to be checked if it's
oom_bfqq.
Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...wei.com>
---
block/bfq-iosched.c | 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
index b8af0bb98d66..776951156fbc 100644
--- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
+++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
@@ -3014,8 +3014,7 @@ bfq_setup_cooperator(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq,
new_bfqq = bfq_find_close_cooperator(bfqd, bfqq,
bfq_io_struct_pos(io_struct, request));
- if (new_bfqq && likely(new_bfqq != &bfqd->oom_bfqq) &&
- bfq_may_be_close_cooperator(bfqq, new_bfqq))
+ if (new_bfqq && bfq_may_be_close_cooperator(bfqq, new_bfqq))
return bfq_setup_merge(bfqq, new_bfqq);
return NULL;
--
2.30.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists