[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090416164253.GU5178@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 18:42:54 +0200
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: simplify I/O stat accounting
On Thu, Apr 16 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 16 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 16 2009, Jerome Marchand wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This simplifies I/O stat accounting switching code and separates it
> > > > completely from I/O scheduler switch code.
> > > >
> > > > Requests are accounted according to the state of their request queue
> > > > at the time of the request allocation. There is no need anymore to
> > > > flush the request queue when switching I/O accounting state.
> > >
> > > This is cleaner, I like it. I'll apply it, but I'm changing this one:
> > >
> > > > @@ -792,9 +792,10 @@ static struct request *get_request(struct
> > > > request_queue *q, int rw_flags,
> > > > if (priv)
> > > > rl->elvpriv++;
> > > >
> > > > + iostat = blk_queue_io_stat(q) ? REQ_IO_STAT : 0;
> > > > spin_unlock_irq(q->queue_lock);
> > >
> > > to a regular if, I hate these ?: constructs. An if is much more
> > > readable, imho.
> >
> > Grmbl, your patch is line wrapped. Please fix your mailer.
>
> And it doesn't apply to current -git. Looks like a hand apply, but
> please be a little more careful in the future.
OK, it doesn't even compile either:
+#define blk_rq_io_stat(rq) ((rq)->flags & REQ_IO_STAT)
that wants to be ->cmd_flags.
Please resend when you have something that at least compiles. If you
send untested stuff my way, at least tell me.
--
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