On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 10:38:49AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 10:15:41AM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 09:59:04PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
quoted
+static int blk_mq_create_mq_map(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set,
+ const struct cpumask *affinity_mask)
+{
+ int queue = -1, cpu = 0;
+
+ set->mq_map = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*set->mq_map) * nr_cpu_ids,
+ GFP_KERNEL, set->numa_node);
+ if (!set->mq_map)
+ return -ENOMEM;
+
+ if (!affinity_mask)
+ return 0; /* map all cpus to queue 0 */
+
+ /* If cpus are offline, map them to first hctx */
+ for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
+ if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, affinity_mask))
+ queue++;
CPUs missing in an affinity mask are mapped to hctxs. Is that intended?
Yes - each CPU needs to be mapped to some hctx, otherwise we can't
submit I/O from that CPU.
quoted
quoted
+ if (queue > 0)
Why this check?
quoted
+ set->mq_map[cpu] = queue;
mq_map is initialized to zero already, so we don't really need the
assignment for queue 0. The reason why this check exists is because
we start with queue = -1 and we never want to assignment -1 to mq_map.
Would this read better then?
int queue = 0;
...
/* If cpus are offline, map them to first hctx */
for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
set->mq_map[cpu] = queue;
if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, affinity_mask))
queue++;
}