From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
To: Jonathan Lahr <lahr@us.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org,
lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] SCSI io_request_lock patch
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 09:23:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20011113092311.L786@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20011112130902.B26302@us.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <20011112130902.B26302@us.ibm.com>
On Mon, Nov 12 2001, Jonathan Lahr wrote:
>
> This is a request for comments on the patch described below which
> implements a revised approach to reducing io_request_lock contention
> in 2.4.
>
> This new version of the io_request_lock patch (siorl-v0) is available
> at http://sourceforge.net/projects/lse/. It employs the same
> concurrent request queueing scheme as the iorlv0 patch but isolates
> code changes to the SCSI subsystem and engages the new locking scheme
> only for SCSI drivers which explicitly request it. I took this more
> restricted approach after additional development based on comments from
> Jens and others indicated that iorlv0 impacted the IDE subsystem and
> was unnecessarily broad in general.
>
> The siorl-v0 patch allows drivers to enable concurrent queueing through
> the concurrent_queue field in the Scsi_Host_Template which is copied to
> the request queue. It creates SCSI-specific versions of generic block
> i/o functions used by the SCSI subsystem and modifies them to conditionally
> engage the new locking scheme based on this field. It allows control over
> which drivers use concurrent queueing and preserves original block i/o
> behavior by default.
Sorry Jonathan, but this is even more broken than the last patch. In
different ways. In no particular order:
o You are duplicating way too much code and exporting block internals
o You are breaking SCSI merge completely, why on earth are you suddenly
using ll_*_merge functions for SCSI?!
o scsi_make_request need not worry about head active
o scsi_make_request can safe the q->*_merge indirect
o scsi_dispatch_cmd() io_request_lock removal looks racy
At least you are not breaking anything other than SCSI this time...
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-11-13 8:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-11-12 21:09 SCSI io_request_lock patch Jonathan Lahr
2001-11-13 8:23 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2001-11-13 18:42 ` [Lse-tech] " Jonathan Lahr
2001-11-14 8:11 ` Jens Axboe
2001-11-14 18:54 ` Jonathan Lahr
2001-11-15 10:23 ` Jens Axboe
2001-11-15 18:15 ` Jonathan Lahr
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=20011113092311.L786@suse.de \
--to=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=lahr@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net \
/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.