lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [git patches] xfs and block fixes for virtually indexed arches
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 09:42:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > Which is exactly what the XFS code does. Pages are allocated manually
> > and we store pointers to the page struct that later get added to the
> > bio.
>
> Hmm. The BIO interface that the patch-series changes (bio_map_kern)
> doesn't work that way. It takes a "buf, len" kind of thing. That's what
> I'm complaining about.

Indeed, the "block: permit I/O to vmalloc/vmap kernel pages" does what
you complain about. But the series doesn't actually add a user for
that. What it does in XFS is quite a bit of black magic, too - but only
with the new cache coherence calls that are noops on architectures with
physically indexed caches.

> Well, they clearly are _after_ this series, since that's what all those
> changes to __bio_map_kernel() and bio_map_kern_endio() are all about.
>
> So I believe you when you say that XFS perhaps does everything right - I
> just think that the patch series in question actually makes things worse,
> exactly because it is starting to use virtual addresses.

I'm not entirely sure why James added those, but XFS doesn't actually
use bio_map_kern.

> And I really think that would be all much more properly done at the
> _caller_ level, not by the BIO layer.
>
> You must have some locking and allocation etc logic at the caller anyway,
> why doesn't _that_ level just do the flushing or invalidation?

http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/kyle/parisc-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=56c8214b842324e94aa88012010b0f1f9847daec

does it in the caller level. Not exactly in a beautiful way, but who
am I complain as I'm already lost in our mess of cache coherency APIs.

> IOW, I'm perfectly happy with the patch to fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c.
> That one still seems to use 'bio_add_page()' with a regular 'struct page'.
>
> But the fs/bio.c patch looks like just total and utter crap to me, and is
> the reason I refuse to pull this series.

Kyle/James, can you regenerate the tree without that patch included?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-17 18:53    [W:0.697 / U:0.264 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site