Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:14:42 +0900 | From | Namhyung Kim <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/3] block: prevent duplicated bio completion report |
| |
Hello,
2012-01-18 10:20 AM, Namhyung Kim wrote: > Hi, > > 2012-01-18 2:45 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: >> >>> /* >>> * top 4 bits of bio flags indicate the pool this bio came from >>> */ >>> diff --git a/include/trace/events/block.h b/include/trace/events/block.h >>> index 96955f4828b3..72888542e186 100644 >>> --- a/include/trace/events/block.h >>> +++ b/include/trace/events/block.h >>> @@ -219,7 +219,8 @@ TRACE_EVENT_CONDITION(block_bio_complete, >>> >>> TP_ARGS(q, bio, error), >>> >>> - TP_CONDITION(bio->bi_bdev != NULL), >>> + TP_CONDITION(bio->bi_bdev != NULL && >>> + !(bio->bi_flags & BIO_COMPLETE_MASK)), >> >> Bounced bio's are separate bio's too and I don't think masking its >> completion from the TP itself is a good idea. As I wrote before, why >> not do this from blktrace code? > > Because blktrace cannot know about the bi_flags, as I said before. :) > And although the bounced bio's are separate ones, they aren't queued > separately. They just get replaced on the way.
Oh, now I guess you meant this:
diff --git a/kernel/trace/blktrace.c b/kernel/trace/blktrace.c index 16fc34a0806f..2ef57fb2566e 100644 --- a/kernel/trace/blktrace.c +++ b/kernel/trace/blktrace.c @@ -792,6 +792,9 @@ static void blk_add_trace_bio_complete(void *ignore, struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio, int error) { + if (bio->bi_flags & BIO_COMPLETE_MASK) + return; + blk_add_trace_bio(q, bio, BLK_TA_COMPLETE, error); }
Anyway do you still think masking on TP is not a good idea?
Thanks, Namhyung
| |