mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@gmail.com>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@novell.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2.6.38-rc5 2/2] block: blk-flush shouldn't call directly into q->request_fn() __blk_run_queue()
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:50:28 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <x49ipvusoaj.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D7534D6.7020000@kernel.dk> (Jens Axboe's message of "Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:41:10 +0100")

Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> writes:

> On 2011-03-07 20:39, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>>>> I think the real issue may just be that the ide driver is blocking in
>>>> its request function.  What have I missed?
>>>
>>> So the only case where the request_fn is called and you cannot block, is
>>> if you call it from your completion function. Any other invocation
>>> should be from process context. As long as you remember to drop the
>>> queue lock and re-enable interrupts, it should work. It's not great
>>> style and I would not recommend it for a performance environment, but it
>>> should work.
>> 
>> So are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?  ;-)  It sounds to me like
>> you're saying that the ide driver should be able to cope with being
>> called from softirq context.
>
> I'm just stating how it should work :-)
>
> But yes, it sounds like IDE is violating this rule and that's why it was
> broken. Even with that, having explicit control of the queue running
> does make sense.

Well, I wonder if it makes sense *in this case*.  With all of the work
going into optimizing the flushing, is deferring work to kblockd really
the best idea?  Tejun, do you know if it has any measurable impact?

Cheers,
Jeff

  reply	other threads:[~2011-03-07 19:50 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-02-17 11:15 [PATCH v2.6.38-rc5 1/2] block: add @force_kblockd to __blk_run_queue() Tejun Heo
2011-02-17 11:16 ` [PATCH v2.6.38-rc5 2/2] block: blk-flush shouldn't call directly into q->request_fn() __blk_run_queue() Tejun Heo
2011-02-17 15:01   ` Mike Snitzer
2011-02-18  9:49     ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 13:46       ` Jens Axboe
2011-03-04 18:25         ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-07  8:41           ` Jens Axboe
2011-03-07 19:33           ` Jeff Moyer
2011-03-07 19:36             ` Jens Axboe
2011-03-07 19:39               ` Jeff Moyer
2011-03-07 19:41                 ` Jens Axboe
2011-03-07 19:50                   ` Jeff Moyer [this message]
2011-03-08  7:54                     ` Tejun Heo
2011-03-02 12:53 ` [PATCH v2.6.38-rc5 1/2] block: add @force_kblockd to __blk_run_queue() Jan Beulich

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=x49ipvusoaj.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com \
    --to=jmoyer@redhat.com \
    --cc=JBeulich@novell.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=davem@davemloft.net \
    --cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=snitzer@gmail.com \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    /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®