[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131106203639.GB2049@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 15:36:40 -0500
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>
To: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...ionio.com>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kmo@...erainc.com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: block: Revert bio_clone() default behaviour
On Wed, Nov 06 2013 at 3:22pm -0500,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...ionio.com> wrote:
> Quoting Kent Overstreet (2013-11-06 15:02:22)
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 11:11:30AM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > >
> > > I think the concept of bio ownership is still much too weak, at least
> > > for established users like MD and DM. I don't know how to verify the
> > > sharing of bi_io_vec without some kind of reference counting on the
> > > iovec.
> >
> > What's unclear about it? The rule is just - if you didn't allocate the biovec,
> > don't modify it or use bio_for_each_segment_all() (probably I didn't quite state
> > it clearly enough before though)
>
> That part makes sense. The new rule that scares me is that we can't
> free the src of the clone until all the clones are freed. If it works
> with today's existing users it feels like it is more by accident than
> design. I'm not saying we can't do it, we just need some bigger
> flashing warning lights.
But we probably don't want those warning lights to come with the cost of
managing extra refcounts in the fast path -- so maybe a debug-only
refcount?
Mike
--
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