On Thu, 2017-08-03 at 14:01 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> static void blk_mq_check_inflight(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> @@ -97,17 +98,25 @@ static void blk_mq_check_inflight(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx
> *hctx,
> {
> struct mq_inflight *mi = priv;
>
> - if (rq->part == mi->part)
> - mi->inflight++;
> + if (!test_bit(REQ_ATOM_STARTED, &rq->atomic_flags))
> + return;
Should the REQ_ATOM_STARTED test perhaps have been introduced in patch 3/4
instead of in this patch?
> + if (rq->part == mi->part1) {
> + mi->inflight[0]++;
> + if (mi->part1->partno &&
> + &part_to_disk(mi->part1)->part0 == mi->part2)
> + mi->inflight[1]++;
> + } else if (rq->part == mi->part2)
> + mi->inflight[1]++;
> }
So mi->part2 may represent part0 but mi->part1 not? Does that deserve a comment?
Additionally, shouldn't the mi->part2 == part0 test be moved out of the
if-statement
such that all requests are counted for part0 instead of storing the same count
in
inflight[0] and inflight[1] if mi->part2 == part0?
> -unsigned int blk_mq_in_flight(struct request_queue *q,
> - struct hd_struct *part)
> +void blk_mq_in_flight(struct request_queue *q, struct hd_struct *part1,
> + struct hd_struct *part2, unsigned int *inflight)
> {
Should inflight be declared as an array to make it clear that it is a pointer to
an array with two elements?
Thanks,
Bart.
