[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20061030082643.GM4563@kernel.dk>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:26:48 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Blaisorblade <blaisorblade@...oo.it>
Cc: akpm@...l.org, jdike@...toit.com,
user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/11] uml ubd driver: ubd_io_lock usage fixup
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 majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists