[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1314687646.29510.52.camel@sli10-conroe>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:00:46 +0800
From: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
To: "sjayaraman@...e.de" <sjayaraman@...e.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] block: document blk-plug
On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 13:21 +0800, Suresh Jayaraman wrote:
> On 08/30/2011 03:18 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:58:21 +0530
> > Suresh Jayaraman <sjayaraman@...e.de> wrote:
> >
> >> --- a/include/linux/blkdev.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> >> @@ -863,17 +863,23 @@ struct request_queue *blk_alloc_queue_node(gfp_t, int);
> >> extern void blk_put_queue(struct request_queue *);
> >>
> >> /*
> >> + * blk_plug allows to build up a queue of related requests by holding the I/O
> >> + * fragments for a short period. This allows merging of sequential requests
> >> + * into single larger request. As the requests are moved from per-task list to
> >> + * the device's request_queue in a batch, this results in improved
> >> + * scalability as the lock contention for request_queue lock is reduced.
> >> + *
> >> * Note: Code in between changing the blk_plug list/cb_list or element of such
> >> * lists is preemptable, but such code can't do sleep (or be very careful),
> >> * otherwise data is corrupted. For details, please check schedule() where
> >> * blk_schedule_flush_plug() is called.
> >
> > What does the older part of this comment mean? If a code section is
> > preemptible then it *will* sleep. That's what preemption does.
> >
>
> From what I can understand, we don't need to explicitly disable preemption
> when modifying the blk_plug->list because interrupts are disabled when we
> are there.
>
> void blk_flush_plug_list(struct blk_plug *plug, bool from_schedule)
> {
>
> ..
>
> /*
> * Save and disable interrupts here, to avoid doing it for every
> * queue lock we have to take.
> */
> local_irq_save(flags);
> while (!list_empty(&list)) {
> rq = list_entry_rq(list.next);
> list_del_init(&rq->queuelist);
> BUG_ON(!rq->q);
> if (rq->q != q) {
> /*
> * This drops the queue lock
> */
> if (q)
> queue_unplugged(q, depth, from_schedule);
> q = rq->q;
> depth = 0;
> spin_lock(q->queue_lock);
> }
>
>
> ..
>
> }
>
> When blk_flush_plug_list() is called from schedule() via
> blk_schedule_flush_plug() we must be very careful to not cause
> need_resched set and thus result in a preemption check?
>
> Does that what your comment intend to mean? Shaohua?
the code adding request to the plug list and doing merge doesn't disable
preempt. That is ok because blk_schedule_flush_plug() only flush the
list when the task truly enters sleep (setting task->state non-running
and call schedule()). That's why I mean the code can be preempted but
can't do sleep.
Thanks,
Shaohua
--
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