[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFR8uefj7kxNUHLeppsH8THPzM7XCzT3tOxtuZ0qr4XUe7Bbmw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:58:05 -0700
From: Muthu Kumar <muthu.lkml@...il.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <koverstreet@...gle.com>,
linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dm-devel@...hat.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>, bharrosh@...asas.com,
david@...morbit.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] block: Avoid deadlocks with bio allocation by
stacking drivers
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:36:28AM -0700, Muthu Kumar wrote:
>> Does this preserve the CPU from which the bio was submitted
>> originally. Not familiar with cmwq, may be Tejun can clarify.
>>
>> Tejun - the question is, do we honor the rq_affinity with the above
>> rescue worker implementation?
>
> The work item would run from the same CPU but there isn't any
> mechanism to keep track of the issuing CPU if there are multiple bios
> to be rescued. Isn't rq_affinity an optimization hint? If so, I
> don't think it matters here.
>
Thanks... Just worried about performance impact.
Kent - Anything to validate that the performance is not impacted would
be really good. Otherwise, the patch looks great.
Feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Muthukumar Ratty <muthur@...il.com>
Regards,
Muthu
> 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