[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m3vek5xk6t.fsf@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:55:38 -0500
From: jmoyer@...hat.com
To: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@...el.com>
Cc: "'Andrew Morton'" <akpm@...l.org>, <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
"'Trond Myklebust'" <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
"'xb'" <xavier.bru@...l.net>,
"'Zach Brown'" <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] aio: fix buggy put_ioctx call in aio_complete
==> Regarding RE: [patch] aio: fix buggy put_ioctx call in aio_complete; "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@...el.com> adds:
kenneth.w.chen> I think I'm going to abandon this whole synchronize thing
kenneth.w.chen> and going to put the wake up call inside ioctx_lock spin
kenneth.w.chen> lock along with the other patch you mentioned above in the
kenneth.w.chen> waiter path. On top of that, I have another patch attempts
kenneth.w.chen> to perform wake-up only when the waiter can truly proceed
kenneth.w.chen> in aio_read_evt so dribbling I/O completion doesn't
kenneth.w.chen> inefficiently waking up waiter too frequently and only to
kenneth.w.chen> have waiter put back to sleep again. I will dig that up and
kenneth.w.chen> experiment.
In the mean time, can't we simply take the context lock in
wait_for_all_aios? Unless I missed something, I think that will address
the reference count problem.
Thanks,
Jeff
-
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