From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au>
Cc: phil@dier.us, axboe@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: oops with dual xeon 2.8ghz 4gb ram +smp, software raid, lvm, and xfs
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:50:38 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041124155038.3716b8a5.akpm@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16805.5470.892995.589150@cse.unsw.edu.au>
Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Would the following (untested-but-seems-to-compile -
> explanation-of-concept) patch be at all reasonable to avoid stack
> depth problems with stacked block devices, or is adding stuff to
> task_struct frowned upon?
It's always a tradeoff - we've put things in task_struct before to get
around sticky situations. Certainly, removing potentially unbounded stack
utilisation is a worthwhile thing to do.
The patch bends my brain a bit. Shouldn't the queueing happen in
submit_bio()?
Is bi_next free in there? If anyone tries to do synchronous I/O things
will get stuck.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-11-25 0:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-11-22 19:06 Phil Dier
2004-11-23 0:17 ` Andrew Morton
2004-11-23 15:37 ` Phil Dier
2004-11-23 17:02 ` Jakob Oestergaard
2004-11-23 18:29 ` Phil Dier
2004-11-23 22:39 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-11-23 22:56 ` Jakob Oestergaard
2004-11-23 23:12 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-11-30 17:37 ` Phil Dier
2004-11-24 15:45 ` Phil Dier
2004-11-24 16:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-11-24 23:12 ` Andrew Morton
2004-11-25 0:48 ` Phil Dier
2004-11-28 11:29 ` David Greaves
2004-11-28 18:27 ` Andrew Morton
2004-12-08 9:03 ` David Greaves
2004-12-08 9:15 ` Andrew Morton
2004-12-09 3:50 ` Nigel Cunningham
2004-11-24 23:12 ` Neil Brown
2004-11-24 23:50 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2004-11-25 0:14 ` Neil Brown
2004-11-25 1:05 ` Andrew Morton
2004-11-25 6:57 ` Jens Axboe
2004-11-25 7:08 ` Andrew Morton
2004-11-25 7:11 ` Jens Axboe
2004-11-23 20:48 Joerg Sommrey
2004-11-24 9:28 Anders Saaby
[not found] <33rTj-1VZ-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <33wJq-633-25@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <34fwL-P1-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <34fGp-V2-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <34fGp-V2-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <34lVr-5WH-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
[not found] ` <34m5a-61Z-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
2004-11-25 11:07 ` Andi Kleen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20041124155038.3716b8a5.akpm@osdl.org \
--to=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au \
--cc=phil@dier.us \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®