| Message ID | 20231016020847.1270258-2-haowenchao2@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | cleanup patch | expand |
On 10/15/23 19:08, Wenchao Hao wrote: > + /* > + * device_blocked is not set at mostly time, so check it first > + * and return token when it is not set. > + */ > + if (!atomic_read(&sdev->device_blocked)) > + return token; This patch looks like an improvement to me. But I don't think that the above comment is useful. I propose to move it into the patch description. > - /* > - * unblock after device_blocked iterates to zero > - */ > - if (atomic_dec_return(&sdev->device_blocked) > 0) > - goto out_dec; > - SCSI_LOG_MLQUEUE(3, sdev_printk(KERN_INFO, sdev, > - "unblocking device at zero depth\n")); > + /* > + * unblock after device_blocked iterates to zero > + */ > + if (scsi_device_busy(sdev) > 1 || > + atomic_dec_return(&sdev->device_blocked) > 0) { > + sbitmap_put(&sdev->budget_map, token); > + return -1; > } Please make the above comment match the new code, e.g. by changing it into the following: "Only unblock if no other commands are pending and if device_blocked has decreased to zero". Thanks, Bart.
On 2023/10/18 5:15, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On 10/15/23 19:08, Wenchao Hao wrote: >> + /* >> + * device_blocked is not set at mostly time, so check it first >> + * and return token when it is not set. >> + */ >> + if (!atomic_read(&sdev->device_blocked)) >> + return token; > > This patch looks like an improvement to me. But I don't think that the > above comment is useful. I propose to move it into the patch > description. > >> - /* >> - * unblock after device_blocked iterates to zero >> - */ >> - if (atomic_dec_return(&sdev->device_blocked) > 0) >> - goto out_dec; >> - SCSI_LOG_MLQUEUE(3, sdev_printk(KERN_INFO, sdev, >> - "unblocking device at zero depth\n")); >> + /* >> + * unblock after device_blocked iterates to zero >> + */ > > + if (scsi_device_busy(sdev) > 1 || > > + atomic_dec_return(&sdev->device_blocked) > 0) { > > + sbitmap_put(&sdev->budget_map, token); > > + return -1; > > } > > Please make the above comment match the new code, e.g. by changing it > into the following: "Only unblock if no other commands are pending and > if device_blocked has decreased to zero". > OK, would update. Thanks. > Thanks, > > Bart. >
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c index 40f407ffd26f..b179c24f9c76 100644 --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c @@ -1250,28 +1250,29 @@ static inline int scsi_dev_queue_ready(struct request_queue *q, int token; token = sbitmap_get(&sdev->budget_map); - if (atomic_read(&sdev->device_blocked)) { - if (token < 0) - goto out; + if (token < 0) + return -1; - if (scsi_device_busy(sdev) > 1) - goto out_dec; + /* + * device_blocked is not set at mostly time, so check it first + * and return token when it is not set. + */ + if (!atomic_read(&sdev->device_blocked)) + return token; - /* - * unblock after device_blocked iterates to zero - */ - if (atomic_dec_return(&sdev->device_blocked) > 0) - goto out_dec; - SCSI_LOG_MLQUEUE(3, sdev_printk(KERN_INFO, sdev, - "unblocking device at zero depth\n")); + /* + * unblock after device_blocked iterates to zero + */ + if (scsi_device_busy(sdev) > 1 || + atomic_dec_return(&sdev->device_blocked) > 0) { + sbitmap_put(&sdev->budget_map, token); + return -1; } + SCSI_LOG_MLQUEUE(3, sdev_printk(KERN_INFO, sdev, + "unblocking device at zero depth\n")); + return token; -out_dec: - if (token >= 0) - sbitmap_put(&sdev->budget_map, token); -out: - return -1; } /*
This is just a cleanup for scsi_dev_queue_ready() to avoid redundant goto and if statement, it did not change the origin logic. Signed-off-by: Wenchao Hao <haowenchao2@huawei.com> --- drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)