[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F303506.9000201@kernel.dk>
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 21:16:06 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Shaohua Li <vivek.goyal2008@...il.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Knut Petersen <Knut_Petersen@...nline.de>, mroos@...ux.ee
Subject: Re: [patch]block: fix ioc locking warning
On 2012-02-06 18:27, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 08:58:49AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yeah, this seems better to me. Jens, if you're gonna amend the
>>> commit, please consider collapsing the following patch into the
>>> original patch too. Thanks.
>>
>> Guys, is it *really* worth it to do all these crazy games?
>>
>> How bad is it to just always use the async freeing, instead of this
>> clearly very fragile crazy direct-freeing-with-serious-locking-issues
>> thing?
>
> It's one wq scheduling on exit for any task which has issued an IO. I
> don't think it would matter except for task fork/exit microbenchs (or
> workloads which approximate to that). I'll get some measurements and
> strip the optimization if it doesn't really show up.
One (arguably stupid) thing that some users do do is something like:
$ find . -exec grep foo '{}' \;
So that would probably be a good pathological test case for this.
--
Jens Axboe
--
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