Commit fc84e1f9 authored by Jan Kara's avatar Jan Kara Committed by Jens Axboe

bfq: Drop pointless unlock-lock pair

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: default avatar"yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarJan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Reviewed-by: default avatarChristoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220401102752.8599-5-jack@suse.czSigned-off-by: default avatarJens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
parent ea591cd4
...@@ -6150,11 +6150,8 @@ static void bfq_insert_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, struct request *rq, ...@@ -6150,11 +6150,8 @@ static void bfq_insert_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, struct request *rq,
return; return;
} }
spin_unlock_irq(&bfqd->lock);
trace_block_rq_insert(rq); trace_block_rq_insert(rq);
spin_lock_irq(&bfqd->lock);
bfqq = bfq_init_rq(rq); bfqq = bfq_init_rq(rq);
if (!bfqq || at_head) { if (!bfqq || at_head) {
if (at_head) if (at_head)
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment