[lkml]   [2002]   [Mar]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.4.19pre3aa2
    Jens Axboe wrote:
    > On Fri, Mar 15 2002, Jari Ruusu wrote:
    > > - No more illegal sleeping in generic_make_request().
    > I've told you this before -- sleeping in make_request is not illegal,
    > heck it happens _all the time_. Safely sleeping requires a reserved pool
    > of the units you wish to allocate, of course. In fact I think that would
    > be much nicer than the path you are following here by delaying
    > allocations to the loop thread (and still not using a reserved pool).

    Yes, I know you have told me that before, but I'm being overcareful. See:

    <quote> from device drivers book by Alessandro Rubini, chapter 12, page 331
    The request function has one very important constraint: it must be atomic.
    request is not usually called in direct response to user requests, and it is
    not running in the context of any particular process. It can be called at
    interrupt time, from tasklets, or from any number of other places. Thus, it
    must not sleep while carrying out its tasks.

    > - loop_put_buffer(), it looks racy to check waitqueue_active there.

    No race there. All that loop_put_buffer() cares is that helper thread wakes
    up. If helper thread woke up earlier and completed its job, fine. If helper
    thread wakes up later, that is fine too. If helper thread wakes up
    unnecessarily, it will just go back to sleep after noticing that that there
    is no work to do.

    > - if(!bh) return((struct buffer_head *)0);
    > eww!
    > - Also, please adher to the style. VaRiAbLe names can hurt the eyes, and
    > stuff like
    > if (something) break;
    > return(val);
    > etc don't belong too. Could you fix that up?
    > That said, thanks for fixing it!

    If there is any chance of being merged to mainline kernel, I will fix these
    "hurt the eyes" formatting issues.

    > BTW, it looks like you are killing LO_FLAGS_BH_REMAP?! Why? This is a
    > very worthwhile optimization.

    Removing it simplified the code a lot. Doing remap direcly from
    loop_make_request() would probably be more effective. Just remap and return
    1 from loop_make_request() like LVM code does.

    Jari Ruusu <>
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.025 / U:35.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site