[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120203214719.GE14209@google.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 13:47:19 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, ctalbott@...gle.com, rni@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH UPDATED 11/11] blkcg: unify blkg's for blkcg policies
On Fri, Feb 03, 2012 at 04:44:35PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> Ok, looks like now it is needed because blkcg lock will just gurantee that
> blkg is around but blkg->pd[plid] can disappear if you are not holding
> blkio_list lock (update_root_blkgs).
>
> I am wondering if we should take blkcg->lock if blkg is on blkcg list and
> is being modified in place. That way, once we are switching elevator,
> we should be able to shoot down the policy data without taking blkio_list
> lock.
I think it gotta become something per-queue, not global, and if we
make it per-queue, it should be able to live inside queue_lock.
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