On Sun, Oct 29 2006, Blaisorblade wrote:
> Add some comments about requirements for ubd_io_lock and expand its use.
>
> When an irq signals that the "controller" (i.e. another thread on the host,
> which does the actual requests and is the only one blocked on I/O on the
> host) has done some work, we call again the request function ourselves
> (do_ubd_request).
>
> We now do that with ubd_io_lock held - that's useful to protect against
> concurrent calls to elv_next_request and so on.
Not only useful, required, as I think I complained about a year or more
ago :-)
> XXX: Maybe we shouldn't call at all the request function. Input needed on
> this. Are we supposed to plug and unplug the queue? That code "indirectly"
> does that by setting a flag, called do_ubd, which makes the request function
> return (it's a residual of 2.4 block layer interface).
Sometimes you need to. I'd probably just remove the do_ubd check and
always recall the request function when handling completions, it's
easier and safe.
--
Jens Axboe
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[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]