On 09/12/2017 07:39 PM, jianchao.wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 09/13/2017 09:24 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 09:01:25AM +0800, jianchao.wang wrote:
>>> Hi ming
>>>
>>> On 09/12/2017 06:23 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>>> @@ -1029,14 +1029,20 @@ bool blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(struct request_queue 
>>>>> *q, struct list_head *list)
>>>>>           if (list_empty(list))
>>>>>                   bd.last = true;
>>>>>           else {
>>>>> -                 struct request *nxt;
>>>>> -
>>>>>                   nxt = list_first_entry(list, struct request, queuelist);
>>>>>                   bd.last = !blk_mq_get_driver_tag(nxt, NULL, false);
>>>>>           }
>>>>>  
>>>>>           ret = q->mq_ops->queue_rq(hctx, &bd);
>>>>>           if (ret == BLK_STS_RESOURCE) {
>>>>> +                 /*
>>>>> +                  * If an I/O scheduler has been configured and we got a
>>>>> +                  * driver tag for the next request already, free it 
>>>>> again.
>>>>> +                  */
>>>>> +                 if (!list_empty(list)) {
>>>>> +                         nxt = list_first_entry(list, struct request, 
>>>>> queuelist);
>>>>> +                         blk_mq_put_driver_tag(nxt);
>>>>> +                 }
>>>> The following way might be more simple and clean:
>>>>
>>>>                    if (nxt)
>>>>                            blk_mq_put_driver_tag(nxt);
>>>>
>>>> meantime 'nxt' need to be cleared inside the 'if (list_empty(list))'
>>>> before .queue_rq().
>>>
>>> I had ever thought about that, but to avoid add extra command in the 
>>> fast path, I made the patch above.
>>
>> Got it, so how about changing to the following way simply:
>>
>>                      if (nxt && !list_empty(list))
>>                              blk_mq_put_driver_tag(nxt);
>>
> It seems that we even could change it as following:
>                         if (!list_empty(list))
>                               blk_mq_put_driver_tag(nxt);

This is starting to get too clever for its own good, I generally don't
like to sacrifice readability for performance. In reality, the compiler
probably figures it out anyway...

So either make it explicit, or add a nice comment as to why it is the
way that it is.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Reply via email to