lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Aug]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Distributed storage.
On Mon, Aug 13 2007, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Monday 13 August 2007 00:45, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 13 2007, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > You did not comment on the one about putting the bio destructor
> > > > in the ->endio handler, which looks dead simple. The majority of
> > > > cases just use the default endio handler and the default
> > > > destructor. Of the remaining cases, where a specialized
> > > > destructor is needed, typically a specialized endio handler is
> > > > too, so combining is free. There are few if any cases where a
> > > > new specialized endio handler would need to be written.
> > >
> > > We could do that without too much work, I agree.
> >
> > But that idea fails as well, since reference counts and IO completion
> > are two completely seperate entities. So unless end IO just happens
> > to be the last user holding a reference to the bio, you cannot free
> > it.
>
> That is not a problem. When bio_put hits zero it calls ->endio instead
> of the destructor. The ->endio sees that the count is zero and
> destroys the bio.

You can't be serious? You'd stall end io completion notification because
someone holds a reference to a bio. Surely you jest.

Needless to say, that will never go in.

--
Jens Axboe

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-08-13 15:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans