[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <tencent_8F4803A1271AF89895A2B3310C9F4126AB07@qq.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2025 16:23:10 +0800
From: Han Guangjiang <gj.han@...mail.com>
To: yukuai1@...weicloud.com
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk,
buaajxlj@....com,
fanggeng@...iang.com,
gj.han@...mail.com,
hailan@...uai.org.cn,
hanguangjiang@...iang.com,
liangjie@...iang.com,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
yangchen11@...iang.com,
yukuai3@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-throttle: check policy bit in blk_throtl_activated()
Hi,
> Yes, however, this can be fixed very similar:
>
> Set sq->parent_sq to NULL here, and add a helper parent_sq(q, sq):
>
> if (sq->parent_sq)
> return sq->parent_sq;
>
> td_sq = &q->td->service_queue;
> return sq == td_sq ? NULL : td_sq;
>
> And sq_to_tg() need to be changed as well. So far, I'm not sure how many
> code changes are required this way. We of course want a simple fix for
> stable backport, but we definitely still want this kind of fix in future
> release.
We preliminarily tried implementing this approach. But the changes are
scattered and backport might be complex. So we provide a simple fix first.
> Meanwhile, please remove the comment about freeze queue, turns out it
> can't protect blk_throtl_bio() becasue q_usage_coutner is not grabbed
> yet while issuing bio.
As discussed before, we also removed some outdated comments in
blk_should_throtl().
We just submitted v2 which includes the changes.
We look forward to your feedback and suggestions on the v2 patch.
Thanks,
Han Guangjiang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists