[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <000001c7246a$ae31c8a0$ff0da8c0@amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:11:40 -0800
From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@...el.com>
To: "'Kiyoshi Ueda'" <k-ueda@...jp.nec.com>, <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc: <agk@...hat.com>, <mchristi@...hat.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
<j-nomura@...jp.nec.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 1/8] rqbased-dm: allow blk_get_request() to be called from interrupt context
Kiyoshi Ueda wrote on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 9:50 AM
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:48:49 +0100, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com> wrote:
> > Big NACK on this - it's not only really ugly, it's also buggy to pass
> > interrupt flags as function arguments. As you also mention in the 0/1
> > mail, this also breaks CFQ.
> >
> > Why do you need in-interrupt request allocation?
>
> Because I'd like to use blk_get_request() in q->request_fn()
> which can be called from interrupt context like below:
> scsi_io_completion -> scsi_end_request -> scsi_next_command
> -> scsi_run_queue -> blk_run_queue -> q->request_fn
>
> [ ...]
>
> Do you think creating another function like blk_get_request_nowait()
> is acceptable?
You don't need to create another function. blk_get_request already
have both wait and nowait semantics via gfp_mask argument. If you can
not block, then clear __GFP_WAIT bit in the mask before calling
blk_get_request.
- Ken
-
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