Kent,
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Kent Overstreet
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:58:05AM -0700, Muthu Kumar wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:36:28AM -0700, Muthu Kumar wrote:
>> >> Does this preserve the CPU
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:58:05AM -0700, Muthu Kumar wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Tejun Heo 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
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Tejun Heo 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 th
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?
Kent,
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
..
..
>
> +static void bio_alloc_rescue(struct work_struct *work)
> +{
> + struct bio_set *bs = container_of(work, struct bio_set, rescue_work);
> + struct bio *bio;
> +
> + while (1) {
> + spin_lock(&
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:35:02PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> debug. Would it be difficult to convert dm drivers to collect size
> requirements and use front-pad for all per-bio data?
I can't give a quick answer because a single bio may require a variable
number (depending on the bio content) of
Hello, Alasdair.
On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 12:09:17AM +0100, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:01:01PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > IIUC, Kent posted a patch which converts all of them to use front-pad
>
> The only patch I saw posted here only handles one of the easier cases so f
Hello, again.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 03:09:10PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> I'm still a bit scared but think this is correct.
>
> Acked-by: Tejun Heo
>
> One last thing is that we may want to add @name on bioset creation so
> that we can name the workqueue properly but that's for another patch.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:01:01PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> IIUC, Kent posted a patch which converts all of them to use front-pad
The only patch I saw posted here only handles one of the easier cases so far.
The others are a bit trickier and probably involve a decision about which way to
change
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 04:01:01PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> >> > Note that this doesn't do anything for allocation from other
> >> > mempools.
> >
> > Note that dm has several cases of this, so this patch should not be u
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:50:57PM +0100, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 03:09:10PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 02:56:33PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > commit df7e63cbffa3065fcc4ba2b9a93418d7c7312243
> > > Author: Kent Overstreet
> > > Date: Mon
Hello,
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
>> > Note that this doesn't do anything for allocation from other mempools.
>
> Note that dm has several cases of this, so this patch should not be used with
> dm yet. Mikulas is studying those cases to see whether anything lik
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 03:09:10PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 02:56:33PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > commit df7e63cbffa3065fcc4ba2b9a93418d7c7312243
> > Author: Kent Overstreet
> > Date: Mon Sep 10 14:33:46 2012 -0700
> >
> > block: Avoid deadlocks with bio allo
Hello, Kent.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 02:56:33PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> commit df7e63cbffa3065fcc4ba2b9a93418d7c7312243
> Author: Kent Overstreet
> Date: Mon Sep 10 14:33:46 2012 -0700
>
> block: Avoid deadlocks with bio allocation by stacking drivers
>
> Previously, if we
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 02:37:10PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 02:33:49PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > "Simpler" isn't really an objective thing though. To me the goto version
> > is more obvious/idiomatic.
> >
> > Eh. I'll do it your way, but consider this a formal obje
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 02:33:49PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> "Simpler" isn't really an objective thing though. To me the goto version
> is more obvious/idiomatic.
>
> Eh. I'll do it your way, but consider this a formal objection :p
Thanks. :)
--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: sen
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 01:40:10PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Kent.
>
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 01:24:35PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > And at that point, why duplicate that line of code? It doesn't matter that
> > much, but IMO a goto retry better labels what's actually going on (it's
Hello, Kent.
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 01:24:35PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> And at that point, why duplicate that line of code? It doesn't matter that
> much, but IMO a goto retry better labels what's actually going on (it's
> something that's not uncommon in the kernel and if I see a retry la
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:22:10AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Kent.
>
> On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 05:28:10PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > > + while ((bio = bio_list_pop(current->bio_list)))
> > > > + bio_list_add(bio->bi_pool == bs ? &punt : &nopunt, bio);
> > > > +
Hello, Kent.
On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 05:28:10PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > + while ((bio = bio_list_pop(current->bio_list)))
> > > + bio_list_add(bio->bi_pool == bs ? &punt : &nopunt, bio);
> > > +
> > > + *current->bio_list = nopunt;
> >
> > Why this is necessary needs explanati
On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 05:28:10PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
[..]
> > > +retry:
> > > p = mempool_alloc(bs->bio_pool, gfp_mask);
> > > front_pad = bs->front_pad;
> > > inline_vecs = BIO_INLINE_VECS;
> > > }
> >
> > Wouldn't the following be better?
> >
> >
On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 12:36:41PM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> (Restoring cc list from the previous discussion. Please retain the cc
> list of the people who discussed in the previous postings.)
>
> On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 03:12:53PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > But this is tricky and not a ge
(Restoring cc list from the previous discussion. Please retain the cc
list of the people who discussed in the previous postings.)
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 03:12:53PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> But this is tricky and not a generic solution. This patch solves it for
> all users by inverting the
Previously, if we ever try to allocate more than once from the same bio
set while running under generic_make_request() (i.e. a stacking block
driver), we risk deadlock.
This is because of the code in generic_make_request() that converts
recursion to iteration; any bios we submit won't actually be
24 matches
Mail list logo
