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    [W:0.038 / U:61.144 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site