Nick Piggin wrote:
Chen, Kenneth W wrote:
I like the patch a lot and already did bench it on our db setup.
However,
I'm seeing a negative regression compare to a very very crappy patch (see
attached, you can laugh at me for doing things like that :-).
OK - if we go that way, perhaps the following patch may be the
way to do it.
Here.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Index: linux-2.6/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c 2005-04-12 21:03:01.000000000 +1000
+++ linux-2.6/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c 2005-04-12 21:03:45.000000000 +1000
@@ -1956,10 +1956,11 @@ out:
*/
static struct request *get_request_wait(request_queue_t *q, int rw)
{
- DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
struct request *rq;
- do {
+ rq = get_request(q, rw, GFP_NOIO);
+ while (!rq) {
+ DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
struct request_list *rl = &q->rq;
prepare_to_wait_exclusive(&rl->wait[rw], &wait,
@@ -1987,7 +1988,7 @@ static struct request *get_request_wait(
spin_lock_irq(q->queue_lock);
}
finish_wait(&rl->wait[rw], &wait);
- } while (!rq);
+ }
return rq;
}
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
