Hello, On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 11:16:47AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: ... > --- a/drivers/md/dm.c > +++ b/drivers/md/dm.c > @@ -651,9 +651,9 @@ static void start_io_acct(struct dm_io *io) > > cpu = part_stat_lock(); > part_round_stats(cpu, &dm_disk(md)->part0); > + part_stat_set(cpu, &dm_disk(md)->part0, in_flight[rw], > + atomic_inc_return(&md->pending[rw])); > part_stat_unlock(); > - atomic_set(&dm_disk(md)->part0.in_flight[rw], > - atomic_inc_return(&md->pending[rw]));
Why is this correct? Isn't the code trying to transfer its stat to block stat verbatim? Why does part_stat_set() have @cpu param at all? Shouldn't it clear the whole thing and set one of the cpu counters to the target value? > @@ -679,7 +679,9 @@ static void end_io_acct(struct dm_io *io) > * a flush. > */ > pending = atomic_dec_return(&md->pending[rw]); > - atomic_set(&dm_disk(md)->part0.in_flight[rw], pending); > + cpu = part_stat_lock(); > + part_stat_set(cpu, &dm_disk(md)->part0, in_flight[rw], pending); > + part_stat_unlock(); Ditto. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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/
