On 08/09/2013 10:46 AM, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 09:52:19AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 08/09/2013 09:07 AM, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
>>> diff --git a/block/blk-mq-tag.c b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
>>> index dcbc2a4..b131a48 100644
>>> --- a/block/blk-mq-tag.c
>>> +++ b/block/blk-mq-tag.c
>>> @@ -468,10 +468,9 @@ struct blk_mq_tags *blk_mq_init_tags(unsigned int
>>> nr_tags,
>>> * Rest of the tags start at the queue list
>>> */
>>> tags->nr_free = 0;
>>> - while (nr_tags - tags->nr_reserved) {
>>> + while (nr_tags--) {
>>> tags->freelist[tags->nr_free] = tags->nr_free +
>>> tags->nr_reserved;
>>> - nr_tags--;
>>> tags->nr_free++;
>>> }
>>
>> I misremembered, just checked the code. I think I used to have it like I
>> described, but changed it since I thought it would be more logical to
>> pass in full depth, and then what part of that is reserved. Looking at
>> the current code, your patch looks correct as-is.
>
> Ok, then a whole series "[PATCH 0/3] blk-mq: Avoid effects of a weird queue
> depth" (I posted earlier in a separate thread) should make sense. Besides
> the hunk above it limits the per-cpu cache size and sanity-checks total vs
> reserved length. I can resubmit if you want.
You don't have to resubmit, I'll get it reviewed and applied today.
--
Jens Axboe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
