On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 10:15:41AM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 09:59:04PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > +static int blk_mq_create_mq_map(struct blk_mq_tag_set *set,
> > + const struct cpumask *affinity_mask)
> > +{
> > + int queue = -1, cpu = 0;
> > +
> > + set->mq_map = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*set->mq_map) * nr_cpu_ids,
> > + GFP_KERNEL, set->numa_node);
> > + if (!set->mq_map)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + if (!affinity_mask)
> > + return 0; /* map all cpus to queue 0 */
> > +
> > + /* If cpus are offline, map them to first hctx */
> > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> > + if (cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, affinity_mask))
> > + queue++;
>
> CPUs missing in an affinity mask are mapped to hctxs. Is that intended?
Yes - each CPU needs to be mapped to some hctx, otherwise we can't
submit I/O from that CPU.
> > + if (queue > 0)
>
> Why this check?
>
> > + set->mq_map[cpu] = queue;
mq_map is initialized to zero already, so we don't really need the
assignment for queue 0. The reason why this check exists is because
we start with queue = -1 and we never want to assignment -1 to mq_map.
