[PATCH v2 3/8] blk-mq: use the introduced blk_mq_unquiesce_queue()

[Ming Lei]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:04:02PM -0700, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:21:21PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > blk_mq_unquiesce_queue() is used for unquiescing the
> > queue explicitly, so replace blk_mq_start_stopped_hw_queues()
> > with it.
> > 
> > Cc: linux-nvme at lists.infradead.org
> > Cc: linux-scsi at vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: dm-devel at redhat.com
> > Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei at redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/md/dm-rq.c       | 2 +-
> >  drivers/nvme/host/core.c | 2 +-
> >  drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c  | 5 ++++-
> >  3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-rq.c b/drivers/md/dm-rq.c
> > index 2af27026aa2e..673fcf075077 100644
> > --- a/drivers/md/dm-rq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/md/dm-rq.c
> > @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ static void dm_old_start_queue(struct request_queue *q)
> >  
> >  static void dm_mq_start_queue(struct request_queue *q)
> >  {
> > -	blk_mq_start_stopped_hw_queues(q, true);
> > +	blk_mq_unquiesce_queue(q);
> >  	blk_mq_kick_requeue_list(q);
> >  }
> >  
> > diff --git a/drivers/nvme/host/core.c b/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
> > index 04e115834702..231d36028afc 100644
> > --- a/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/nvme/host/core.c
> > @@ -2514,7 +2514,7 @@ void nvme_start_queues(struct nvme_ctrl *ctrl)
> >  
> >  	mutex_lock(&ctrl->namespaces_mutex);
> >  	list_for_each_entry(ns, &ctrl->namespaces, list) {
> > -		blk_mq_start_stopped_hw_queues(ns->queue, true);
> > +		blk_mq_unquiesce_queue(ns->queue);
> >  		blk_mq_kick_requeue_list(ns->queue);
> >  	}
> >  	mutex_unlock(&ctrl->namespaces_mutex);
> > diff --git a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> > index 814a4bd8405d..72b11f75719c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> > +++ b/drivers/scsi/scsi_lib.c
> > @@ -3030,7 +3030,10 @@ scsi_internal_device_unblock(struct scsi_device *sdev,
> >  		return -EINVAL;
> >  
> >  	if (q->mq_ops) {
> > -		blk_mq_start_stopped_hw_queues(q, false);
> > +		if (blk_queue_quiesced(q))
> > +			blk_mq_unquiesce_queue(q);
> 
> Calling this here, at this point means:
> 		blk_mq_start_stopped_hw_queues(q, true);
> 
> Does it make a difference, given that before the code always calling 
> 		blk_mq_start_stopped_hw_queues(q, false);

Good catch, it should have been:

		if (blk_queue_quiesced(q))
			blk_mq_unquiesce_queue(q);
		else
			blk_mq_start_stopped_hw_queues(q, false);

Thanks,
Ming