Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | Subject | [PATCH 5.4 275/411] bfq: Drop pointless unlock-lock pair | Date | Mon, 13 Jun 2022 12:09:08 +0200 |
| |
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
commit fc84e1f941b91221092da5b3102ec82da24c5673 upstream.
In bfq_insert_request() we unlock bfqd->lock only to call trace_block_rq_insert() and then lock bfqd->lock again. This is really pointless since tracing is disabled if we really care about performance and even if the tracepoint is enabled, it is a quick call.
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org Tested-by: "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@huawei.com> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220401102752.8599-5-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> --- block/bfq-iosched.c | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
--- a/block/bfq-iosched.c +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c @@ -5529,11 +5529,8 @@ static void bfq_insert_request(struct bl return; } - spin_unlock_irq(&bfqd->lock); - blk_mq_sched_request_inserted(rq); - spin_lock_irq(&bfqd->lock); bfqq = bfq_init_rq(rq); if (!bfqq || at_head || blk_rq_is_passthrough(rq)) { if (at_head)
| |