[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110330075752.GC17523@htj.dyndns.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:57:52 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: eliminate ELEVATOR_INSERT_REQUEUE (was: Re:
elevator private data for REQ_FLUSH)
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 09:41:23AM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> IIRC, at least in the requeue path, some drivers depend on front
> queueing for forward progress guarantee. Forward progress for
> prepping is guaranteed by mempool (or something like that) and when
> the request is retried, it should stay at the front of the queue;
> otherwise, prepping can stall with prepped requests stuck behind
> unprepped ones.
After writing the above, I think the current flush implementation
actually is violating the above. I think the problem is over-use of
front insertion. Flush can just append to the dispatch queue. Front
insertion should only be used by requeueing, really.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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