linux-kernel - Re: [dm-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH 1/8] rqbased-dm: allow blk_get_request() to be called from interrupt context

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20061221184203.GD17199@kernel.dk>
Date:	Thu, 21 Dec 2006 19:42:04 +0100
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>
Cc:	device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
	mchristi@...hat.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, agk@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH 1/8] rqbased-dm: allow blk_get_request()  to be called from interrupt context

On Thu, Dec 21 2006, Mike Christie wrote:
> Mike Christie wrote:
> > Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 21 2006, Mike Christie wrote:
> >>> Or the block layer code could set up the clone too. elv_next_request
> >>> could prep a clone based on the orignal request for the driver then dm
> >>> would not have to worry about that part.
> >> It really can't, since it doesn't know how to allocate the clone
> >> request. I'd rather export this functionality as helpers.
> >>
> > 
> > What do you think about dm's plan to break up make_request into a
> > mapping function and in to the part the builds the bio into a request.
> > This would fit well with them being helpers and being able to allocate
> > the request from the correct context.
> > 
> > I see patches for that did not get posted, but I thought Joe and
> > Alasdair used to talk about that a lot and in the dm code I think there
> > is sill comments about doing it. Maybe the dm comments mentioned the
> > merge_fn, but I guess the merge_fn did not fit what they wanted to do or
> > something. I think Alasdair talked about this at one of his talks at OLS
> > or it was in a proposal for the kernel summit. I can dig up the mail if
> > you want.
> > 
> 
> Ignore that. The problem would be that we may not want to decide which
> path to use at map time.

Latter part, or both paragraphs? Dipping into ->make_request_fn() for
some parts do seem to make sense to me. It'll be cheaper than at
potential soft irq time (from elv_next_request()).

-- 
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/