On 7/23/25 11:07 AM, Yu Kuai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 在 2025/07/23 9:46, Damien Le Moal 写道:
>> On 7/22/25 4:24 PM, Yu Kuai wrote:
>>> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Introduce a new spinlock in elevator_queue, and switch dd->lock to
>>> use the new lock. There are no functional changes.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> block/elevator.c | 1 +
>>> block/elevator.h | 4 ++--
>>> block/mq-deadline.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------
>>> 3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/block/elevator.c b/block/elevator.c
>>> index ab22542e6cf0..91df270d9d91 100644
>>> --- a/block/elevator.c
>>> +++ b/block/elevator.c
>>> @@ -144,6 +144,7 @@ struct elevator_queue *elevator_alloc(struct
>>> request_queue *q,
>>> eq->type = e;
>>> kobject_init(&eq->kobj, &elv_ktype);
>>> mutex_init(&eq->sysfs_lock);
>>> + spin_lock_init(&eq->lock);
>>> hash_init(eq->hash);
>>> return eq;
>>> diff --git a/block/elevator.h b/block/elevator.h
>>> index a07ce773a38f..cbbac4f7825c 100644
>>> --- a/block/elevator.h
>>> +++ b/block/elevator.h
>>> @@ -110,12 +110,12 @@ struct request *elv_rqhash_find(struct request_queue
>>> *q, sector_t offset);
>>> /*
>>> * each queue has an elevator_queue associated with it
>>> */
>>> -struct elevator_queue
>>> -{
>>> +struct elevator_queue {
>>> struct elevator_type *type;
>>> void *elevator_data;
>>> struct kobject kobj;
>>> struct mutex sysfs_lock;
>>> + spinlock_t lock;
>>> unsigned long flags;
>>> DECLARE_HASHTABLE(hash, ELV_HASH_BITS);
>>> };
>>
>> I wonder if the above should not be its own patch, and the remaining below
>> staying in this patch as that match exactly the commit title.
>
> I think you mean *should be it's own patch*. I don't have preference and
Yes, that is what I meant. Sorry about the typo.
> I can do that in the next version :)
>
> Thanks,
> Kuai
>
>
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
