From: Tejun Heo <htejun@gmail.com>
To: zach.brown@oracle.com, pbadari@us.ibm.com, suparna@in.ibm.com,
jmoyer@redhat.com, akpm@osdl.org, cwyang@aratech.co.kr,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, htejun@gmail.com
Subject: [RESEND PATCHSET] direct-io: unify asyn/sync completion paths and fix completion bugs
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 10:16:11 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <11630349713427-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To:
[forgot to include lkml, resending. sorry ppl.]
Hello, Zach Brown, all.
Chul-Woong Yang of Aratech reported kernel oops after failed aio
(partially mapped request) on 2.6.19-rc4 and I spent three days
chasing the bug and hacking direct-io only to find out that there are
pending patches in -mm.
Oh, well.. As my patches are almost ready now, I'm posting it, for
cross-check if nothing else. The biggest difference between your fix
and mine is that instead of merging waiting code, I just unified whole
completion paths. ie. Sync requests are handled exactly the same as
async requests. They are pre-dirtied, completed from bio completion
callback and redirtied from bio_dirty_work if necessary. That
simplified the code a lot and made it humanly readable. :-)
The only concern is possible performance impact for sync DIOs due to
the change in how dirtying is done. As it's done per-bio, the chance
of being written back between pre-issue dirtying and post-completion
checking should be pretty slim, so I don't think it would have any
noticeable effect. Async DIOs have been handled that way after all.
I reshuffled things a bit just before finding out your patch and
didn't test it thoroughly after that, but it should be enough to get
the idea.
Arghh... The lesson here is... check -mm before starting hacking
unfamiliar code. I'm back to libata now.
Thanks.
--
tejun
next reply other threads:[~2006-11-09 1:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-11-09 1:16 Tejun Heo [this message]
2006-11-09 1:16 ` [PATCH 1/5] direct-io: fix page_errors handling Tejun Heo
2006-11-09 1:16 ` [PATCH 2/5] direct-io: fix dio_complete() errno passing in sync completion path Tejun Heo
2006-11-09 1:16 ` [PATCH 4/5] direct-io: unify sync and async completion paths Tejun Heo
2006-11-09 1:16 ` [PATCH 3/5] direct-io: factor out dio_determine_result() Tejun Heo
2006-11-09 1:16 ` [PATCH 5/5] direct-io: fix double completion on partially valid async requests Tejun Heo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=11630349713427-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com \
--to=htejun@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=cwyang@aratech.co.kr \
--cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbadari@us.ibm.com \
--cc=suparna@in.ibm.com \
--cc=zach.brown@oracle.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.