[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110412165455.GB23764@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 12:54:55 -0400
From: "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>
To: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>
Cc: "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"dm-devel@...hat.com" <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
"linux-raid@...r.kernel.org" <linux-raid@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] block: remove per-queue plugging
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 06:49:53PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> I realize that, in fact it's already safe as long as you pass in 'true'
> for __blk_run_queue(). Before I had rewritten it to move the running
> out, so that makes the trick a little difficult. This afternoon I also
> tested it and saw no noticable difference, but I'll probably just do it
> anyway as it makes sense.
We still need the lock for __elv_add_request, so we'll need to keep the
logic anyway. But splitting out the just queue to kblockd case from
__blk_run_queue and giving the latter a sane prototype still sounds
like a good idea to me.
Btw, now that we don't call the request_fn directly any more and thus
can't block, can the unplugging be moved into the preempt notifiers?
--
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