[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110330134658.GB1291@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:46:58 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
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
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:02:03AM +0200, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Jens.
>
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 09:59:09AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > Pure front insert should be used for requeue and internal commands (like
> > spin up this drive, or get error information). Flush should append to
> > the dispatch list.
>
> Yeah, right. The reason I used REQUEUE/FRONT was because BACK
> insertion involves draining the elevator and then appending the
> request at the end of the dispatch queue, which is unnecessary and
> inefficient. So, front insertion was a quick work around that. If
> we're removing elv_insert(), we can just append directly to the
> dispatch queue from flush code.
Hi Tejun,
With ordering semantics gone, do we still need to drain the elevator before
queuing flush at the end of request queue.
Thanks
Vivek
--
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