On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 08:45:19PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 09/12/2017 08:42 PM, jianchao.wang wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 09/13/2017 10:23 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> 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.
> >>
> > yes, it indeed leads to compiler warning of "may be used uninitialized"
> > maybe the original one could be taken back.
> > if (!list_empty(list)) {
> > nxt = list_first_entry(list, struct request,
> > queuelist);
> > blk_mq_put_driver_tag(nxt);
> > }
> > It is more readable and could avoid the warning.
>
> Exactly, and especially the readability is the key element here. It's
> just not worth it to try and be too clever, especially not for something
> like this. When you read the above, you immediately know what the code
> does without needing a comment. That's not true for the other construct.
> You both have to read other parts of the function to figure out what it
> does, AND read the entire function to ensure it always does the right
> thing. Fragile.
OK, fair enough wrt. readability.
Reviewed-by: Ming Lei <[email protected]>
For the original post.
--
Ming
