[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F0BC770.1090702@lge.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:06:56 +0900
From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@....com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, namhyung@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] block: introduce BIO_IN_FLIGHT flag
Hi,
2012-01-10 1:41 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 11:57:43AM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> I understand your concerns. However, the blktrace cannot get
>> bio->bi_flags info in its current form AFAIK. Doing it will require
>> extending struct blk_io_trace and it'll cause a compatibility issue,
>> I guess.
>
> Umm? Why can't blk_add_trace_bio_complete() look at the flags (or
> whatever other states) to decide to fire off BLK_TA_COMPLETE or not?
> What's the difference? No userland visible change is necessary at
> all. Just make blktrace.c do the right thing. Am I missing
> something?
>
> Thanks.
>
Oh I misunderstood what you said. I was thinking about filtering in pure
userspace, but you meant in-kernel probe side.
Right, we can change the probe to filter BIO_BOUNCED case out. But IMHO
BIO_CLONED is different, since it usually routed to another device as a
separate IO request. I'll cook a patch for the former soon.
Thanks for the comment.
Namhyung Kim
--
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