Re: [PATCH] bonding: change spinlocks and remove timers in favor of workqueues

2006-12-07 Thread Jay Vosburgh
Andy Gospodarek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] >My patch actually only uses a single workqueue for each bond (almost >exactly like yours in-fact) with 4 different types of work that can be >placed on it. Well, what I was trying to say was that there are still multiple independently sched

Re: [PATCH] bonding: change spinlocks and remove timers in favor of workqueues

2006-12-07 Thread Andy Gospodarek
On 12/7/06, Jay Vosburgh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't see a problem in starting with your patch; the end state will be sufficiently different (e.g., the four workqueues would ultimately be consolidated into one) that it's still a good testbed to start with. My patch actually only

Re: [PATCH] bonding: change spinlocks and remove timers in favor of workqueues

2006-12-06 Thread Jay Vosburgh
Andy Gospodarek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 12/4/06, Jay Vosburgh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] >> Appended is my working development patch for rearranging a bunch >> of stuff in bonding. This is a work in progress, and is not likely to >> be very stable. This largely reimplements

Re: [PATCH] bonding: change spinlocks and remove timers in favor of workqueues

2006-12-06 Thread Andy Gospodarek
On 12/4/06, Jay Vosburgh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andy Gospodarek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] >> Let me see if I can dust off the extensive patch that does >> change the locking model; I'll see if I can bring it up to the current >> git and post it. >> > >It would seem ideal if we

Re: [PATCH] bonding: change spinlocks and remove timers in favor of workqueues

2006-11-30 Thread Andy Gospodarek
On 11/30/06, Jay Vosburgh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Andy Gospodarek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The main purpose of this patch is to clean-up the bonding code so that >several important operations are not done in the incorrect (softirq) >context. Whenever a kernel is compiled with CONFIG_DEBUG_

Re: [PATCH] bonding: change spinlocks and remove timers in favor of workqueues

2006-11-30 Thread Jay Vosburgh
Andy Gospodarek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The main purpose of this patch is to clean-up the bonding code so that >several important operations are not done in the incorrect (softirq) >context. Whenever a kernel is compiled with CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP >all sorts of backtraces are spewed to t

[PATCH] bonding: change spinlocks and remove timers in favor of workqueues

2006-11-30 Thread Andy Gospodarek
The main purpose of this patch is to clean-up the bonding code so that several important operations are not done in the incorrect (softirq) context. Whenever a kernel is compiled with CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP all sorts of backtraces are spewed to the log since might_sleep will kindly remind us