NeilBrown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> + retry:
> sh = get_active_stripe(conf, new_sector, pd_idx,
> (bi->bi_rw&RWA_MASK));
> if (sh) {
> -
> - while (!add_stripe_bio(sh, bi, dd_idx,
> (bi->bi_rw&RW_MASK))) {
> - /* add failed due to overlap. Flush everything
> + if (!add_stripe_bio(sh, bi, dd_idx,
> (bi->bi_rw&RW_MASK))) {
> + /* Add failed due to overlap. Flush everything
> * and wait a while
> - * FIXME - overlapping requests should be
> handled better
> */
> raid5_unplug_device(mddev->queue);
> - set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> - schedule_timeout(1);
> + release_stripe(sh);
> + schedule();
> + goto retry;
Worrisome. If the calling process has SCHED_RR or SCHED_FIFO policy, this
could cause a lockup, perhaps.
Some sort of real synchronisation scheme would be nicer. Or at the least,
what was wrong with the schedule_timeout(1)?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
