author: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> 2021-08-11 23:52:02 +0800
committer: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> 2021-09-03 10:23:03 +0200
commit: 65bafad4556d99074401cc4630027bee7b0dd09e
parent: 1ae8c1e2dbd78a9c571c1ca4baa8cd68ed069e00
Commit Summary:
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 5 insertions, 22 deletions
diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
index c732aa581124..6dfa572ac1fc 100644
--- a/block/blk-mq.c
+++ b/block/blk-mq.c
@@ -923,34 +923,14 @@ static bool blk_mq_check_expired(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
unsigned long *next = priv;
/*
- * Just do a quick check if it is expired before locking the request in
- * so we're not unnecessarilly synchronizing across CPUs.
- */
- if (!blk_mq_req_expired(rq, next))
- return true;
-
- /*
- * We have reason to believe the request may be expired. Take a
- * reference on the request to lock this request lifetime into its
- * currently allocated context to prevent it from being reallocated in
- * the event the completion by-passes this timeout handler.
- *
- * If the reference was already released, then the driver beat the
- * timeout handler to posting a natural completion.
- */
- if (!refcount_inc_not_zero(&rq->ref))
- return true;
-
- /*
- * The request is now locked and cannot be reallocated underneath the
- * timeout handler's processing. Re-verify this exact request is truly
- * expired; if it is not expired, then the request was completed and
- * reallocated as a new request.
+ * blk_mq_queue_tag_busy_iter() has locked the request, so it cannot
+ * be reallocated underneath the timeout handler's processing, then
+ * the expire check is reliable. If the request is not expired, then
+ * it was completed and reallocated as a new request after returning
+ * from blk_mq_check_expired().
*/
if (blk_mq_req_expired(rq, next))
blk_mq_rq_timed_out(rq, reserved);
-
- blk_mq_put_rq_ref(rq);
return true;
}