[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACVXFVPgMBoEa-Q1WaCVeq5_3kJCPfCt=LZ=pGQxmJv4EnTMoQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 23:34:42 +0800
From: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: mq flush: fix race between IPI handler and mq
flush worker
On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:18 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:05:50PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>> Another simple fix is to disable ipi for flush request, but looks
>> this one should be better.
>
> I think the first thing is to bite the bullet and sort out and document
> the various unions in struct request for real.
I agree, unions should be documented in detail.
>
> For example the first union has the call_single_data for the blk-mq
blk-softirq need rq->csd too in raise_blk_irq().
> completions, while the second one has the ipi_list that is used by
> the old blk-softirq code.
Also we can put some mq specific fields and legacy fields into
one union too.
>
> If we get this right with a single union that contains a struct for
> each phase of the request we might find enough space to keep using
> the current way.
If we can figure it out, that should be better solution, but changing/
merging fields may affect performance too, and need careful
verification.
Thanks,
--
Ming Lei
--
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