[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49y63yvwum.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:13:05 -0400
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Markus Trippelsdorf <markus@...ppelsdorf.de>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: eliminate ELEVATOR_INSERT_REQUEUE (was: Re: elevator private data for REQ_FLUSH)
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com> writes:
> OK, I came up with the following patch.
>
> Jens, this is just a natural cleanup given the code that resulted from
> the flush-merge and onstack plugging changes coming together.
>
>
> From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
> Subject: block: eliminate ELEVATOR_INSERT_REQUEUE
>
> elv_insert() no longer has a need to differentiate between
> ELEVATOR_INSERT_REQUEUE and ELEVATOR_INSERT_FRONT. The onstack plugging
> changes eliminated the need to avoid unplugging the queue (via
> ELEVATOR_INSERT_REQUEUE).
>
> Also, in blk_insert_flush(), use elv_insert() with ELEVATOR_INSERT_FRONT
> rather than open-coding the equivalent.
What you change by doing the call to elv_insert is that now the request
will have REQ_SOFTBARRIER set. I don't think that affects anything,
though (I checked). The rest looks pretty straight-forward.
Reviewed-by: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
--
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