Linux SCSI subsystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
To: Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Arjan Van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com>,
	Martin Peschke3 <MPESCHKE@de.ibm.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>,
	Peter Yao <peter@exavio.com.cn>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-scsi mailing list <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
	ihno@suse.de
Subject: Re: smp dead lock of io_request_lock/queue_lock patch
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:07:22 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1074355641.13198.32.camel@compaq.xsintricity.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <400951E0.9030509@tmr.com>

On Sat, 2004-01-17 at 10:16, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Doug Ledford wrote:
> > On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 12:17, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > 
> >>Doug Ledford wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>More or less.  But part of it also is that a lot of the patches I've
> >>>written are on top of other patches that people don't want (aka, the
> >>>iorl patch).  I've got a mlqueue patch that actually *really* should go
> >>>into mainline because it solves a slew of various problems in one go,
> >>>but the current version of the patch depends on some semantic changes
> >>>made by the iorl patch.  So, sorting things out can sometimes be
> >>>difficult.  But, I've been told to go ahead and do what I can as far as
> >>>getting the stuff out, so I'm taking some time to try and get a bk tree
> >>>out there so people can see what I'm talking about.  Once I've got the
> >>>full tree out there, then it might be possible to start picking and
> >>>choosing which things to port against mainline so that they don't depend
> >>>on patches like the iorl patch.
> >>
> >>If it leads to a more stable kernel, I don't see why iorl can't go in 
> >>(user perspective) because RH is going to maintain it instead of trying 
> >>to find a developer who is competent and willing to do the boring task 
> >>of backfitting bugfixes to sub-optimal code.
> > 
> > 
> > We actually intended to leave it out of RHEL3.  But, once we started
> > doing performance testing of RHEL3 vs. AS2.1, it was obvious that if we
> > didn't put the patch back in we could kiss all of our benchmark results
> > goodbye.  Seriously, it makes that much difference on server systems.
> 
> I'm running 30+ usenet servers, currently on older RH versions. Better 
> performance would certainly be a plus, although stability WRT lockups 
> has been an issue, as has operation when the number of threads gets very 
> high. First tests of RHEL looked very promising for stability, I'm 
> hoping to get the okay to do serious production testing next week.

Well, when you think about it, the iorl patch makes lockups less likely,
and when they do occur they are likely to effect a smaller subset of the
scsi subsystem.  When you have one lock and you get a lockup, the whole
system stops.  When you have one lock per device and one lock per
controller, when they deadlock, they only deadlock a subset of the scsi
subsystem.

-- 
  Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>     919-754-3700 x44233
         Red Hat, Inc.
         1801 Varsity Dr.
         Raleigh, NC 27606

  reply	other threads:[~2004-01-17 16:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2004-01-12 15:07 smp dead lock of io_request_lock/queue_lock patch Martin Peschke3
2004-01-12 15:12 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-01-12 19:48   ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-01-12 19:51     ` Doug Ledford
2004-01-12 20:03       ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-01-12 21:12         ` Jens Axboe
2004-01-13 20:55       ` Marcelo Tosatti
2004-01-17 13:10         ` Doug Ledford
2004-01-17 16:58           ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-01-17 19:07             ` Doug Ledford
2004-01-17 19:17               ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-01-17 19:21                 ` Doug Ledford
2004-01-17 19:29                   ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-01-17 20:36                     ` Doug Ledford
2004-01-17 20:54                       ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-01-20  7:53               ` Jens Axboe
2004-01-25  0:31           ` Kurt Garloff
2004-01-15 17:17       ` Bill Davidsen
2004-01-17 13:12         ` Doug Ledford
2004-01-17 15:16           ` Bill Davidsen
2004-01-17 16:07             ` Doug Ledford [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-01-19 21:36 Martin Peschke3
2004-03-08 21:25 ` Doug Ledford
2004-01-12 16:32 Peter Yao
2004-01-12  9:08 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-01-12  9:19   ` Jens Axboe
2004-01-12  9:19     ` Jens Axboe
2004-01-12  9:20       ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-01-12  9:22         ` Jens Axboe
2004-01-12 13:27           ` Doug Ledford
2004-01-15 17:01             ` Bill Davidsen
2004-01-15 17:05               ` Jens Axboe
2004-01-15 17:09               ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-01-15 19:30               ` Doug Ledford
2004-01-12 14:07 Martin Peschke3
2004-01-12 14:11 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-01-12 14:13 ` Jens Axboe
2004-01-12 15:08   ` Doug Ledford
2004-01-12 15:24     ` James Bottomley
2004-01-12 15:43       ` Jens Axboe
2004-01-12 15:52         ` Doug Ledford
2004-01-12 16:04           ` James Bottomley
2004-01-12 16:05             ` Doug Ledford

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=1074355641.13198.32.camel@compaq.xsintricity.com \
    --to=dledford@redhat.com \
    --cc=MPESCHKE@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=arjanv@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@suse.de \
    --cc=davidsen@tmr.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=ihno@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peter@exavio.com.cn \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox