[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101221160540.GE29522@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 11:05:40 -0500
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: jaxboe@...ionio.com
Cc: oleg@...hat.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] blk-throttle: Couple of more fixes
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 04:07:33PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Hi Jens,
>
> Please find attached couple of more fixes for blk-throttle code. These are
> based on top of "for-linus" branch of your block tree.
>
Hi Jens,
Do you have any concerns with these two fixes? Now Oleg and Paul have
acked it too. Could you please apply these for 2.6.38.
Thanks
Vivek
> Oleg had pointed out couple of race conditions in cgroup weight update code.
> I think these race conditions are hard to hit and not disastrous so I would
> not be too concerned about pushing these patches in 2.6.37 and can queue
> up for 2.6.38.
>
> Paul,
>
> Based on discussion in other mail thread, I have used xchg() based
> implementation for updating and processing limtis. Can you please have a look
> if it is correct implementation and do I need any ACCESS_ONCE() or barriers
> somewhere. If this implementation is not correct then I can go back to atomic
> variable based implementation as suggested by you in other mail thread.
> Appreciate the help.
>
> Thanks
> Vivek
>
> Vivek Goyal (2):
> blk-throttle: process limit change only through one function
> blk-throttle: Some cleanups and race fixes in limit update code
>
> block/blk-throttle.c | 104 ++++++++++++++++++++------------------------------
> 1 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 63 deletions(-)
--
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