On 6/8/21 12:19 AM, Ming Lei wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
static inline void rq_qos_add(struct request_queue *q, struct rq_qos *rqos)
{
+ /*
+ * No IO can be in-flight when adding rqos, so freeze queue, which
+ * is fine since we only support rq_qos for blk-mq queue
+ */
+ blk_mq_freeze_queue(q);
rqos->next = q->rq_qos;
q->rq_qos = rqos;
+ blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(q);
if (rqos->ops->debugfs_attrs)
blk_mq_debugfs_register_rqos(rqos);@@ -110,12 +117,18 @@ static inline void rq_qos_del(struct request_queue *q, struct rq_qos *rqos)
{
struct rq_qos **cur;
+ /*
+ * No IO can be in-flight when removing rqos, so freeze queue,
+ * which is fine since we only support rq_qos for blk-mq queue
+ */
+ blk_mq_freeze_queue(q);
for (cur = &q->rq_qos; *cur; cur = &(*cur)->next) {
if (*cur == rqos) {
*cur = rqos->next;
break;
}
}
+ blk_mq_unfreeze_queue(q);
blk_mq_debugfs_unregister_rqos(rqos);
}
Although this patch looks like an improvement to me, I think we also
need protection against concurrent rq_qos_add() and rq_qos_del() calls,
e.g. via a mutex.
Thanks,
Bart.