[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150213102746.GO2896@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 11:27:46 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: Tony Battersby <tonyb@...ernetics.com>, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, axboe@...nel.dk,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: RAID1 might_sleep() warning on 3.19-rc7
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 07:49:53PM +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > Like said, that will still recursive call delayacct_blkio_*() and would
> > increase nr_iowait for a second time; while arguably its still the same
> > one io-wait instance.
>
> No it doesn't. There is no "blk_flush_plug" call between the
> delayacct_blkio_*() calls.
Duh, clearly I needed to still wake up :/
> I've moved blk_flush_plug to the beginning of the function.
> I wondered if it really make sense to call blk_flush_plug with nr_iowait
> elevated and delayacct_blkio active. blk_flush_plug() could call schedule()
> for non-"io" reasons and maybe that could upset stuff???
Yeah, good question that. Lemme ponder that a bit.
> I don't really know. I'm happy with your version. I don't suppose anyone
> else is paying attention and could give a third opinion....
:-)
--
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