From: Jonathan Lahr <lahr@us.ibm.com>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: io_request_lock/queue_lock patch
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:33:08 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010831113308.A28193@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010830134930.F23680@us.ibm.com> <20010831075613.A2855@suse.de> <20010831075201.N23680@us.ibm.com> <20010831200333.A9069@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <20010831200333.A9069@suse.de>; from axboe@suse.de on Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 08:03:33PM +0200
> > Please elaborate on "no, no, no". Are you suggesting that no further
> > improvements can be made or should be attempted on the 2.4 i/o subsystem?
>
> Of course not. The no no no just means that attempting to globally remove the
> io_request_lock at this point is a no-go, so don't even go there. The
> sledgehammer approach will not fly at this point, it's just way too risky.
I agree that reducing locking scope is often problematic. However,
this patch does not globally remove the io_request_lock. The purpose
of the patch is to protect request queue integrity with a per queue
lock instead of the global io_request_lock. My intent was to leave
other io_request_lock serialization intact. Any insight into whether
the patch leaves data unprotected would be appreciated.
Jonathan
--
Jonathan Lahr
IBM Linux Technology Center
Beaverton, Oregon
lahr@us.ibm.com
503-578-3385
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-08-31 18:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-08-30 20:49 io_request_lock/queue_lock patch Jonathan Lahr
2001-08-30 21:32 ` Gérard Roudier
2001-08-30 21:47 ` Eric Youngdale
2001-08-30 23:07 ` Jonathan Lahr
2001-08-31 5:57 ` Jens Axboe
2001-08-31 5:56 ` Jens Axboe
2001-08-31 14:52 ` Jonathan Lahr
2001-08-31 18:03 ` Jens Axboe
2001-08-31 18:33 ` Jonathan Lahr [this message]
2001-09-03 7:07 ` Jens Axboe
2001-09-04 16:46 ` Jonathan Lahr
2001-09-04 17:17 ` Jens Axboe
2001-09-05 20:30 ` Peter Rival
2001-09-06 6:03 ` Jens Axboe
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=20010831113308.A28193@us.ibm.com \
--to=lahr@us.ibm.com \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
/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.