From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: stern@rowland.harvard.edu, James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Problems with the block-layer timeouts
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 08:23:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081106072352.GR21867@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081106090117U.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
On Thu, Nov 06 2008, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 09:52:48 +0100
> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> > > In blk_del_timer(), there's no reason to test q->rq_timed_out_fn. If
> > > the method pointer is NULL then req->deadline would be 0 anyway. In
> > > addition, req->deadline should be set to 0 and the end of the routine,
> > > just in case req gets requeued.
> > >
> > > In blk_add_timer(), the line
> > >
> > > expiry = round_jiffies(req->deadline);
> > >
> > > is not optimal. round_jiffies() will sometimes round a value _down_ to
> > > the nearest second. But blk_rq_timed_out_timer() tests whether
> > > req->deadline is in the past -- and if the deadline was rounded down
> > > then this won't be true the first time through. You wind up getting an
> > > unnecessary timer interrupt. Instead there should be a
> > > round_jiffies_up() utility routine, and it should be used in both
> > > blk_add_timer() and blk_rq_timed_out_timer().
> >
> > Very good point, we do indeed want a round_jiffies_up() for this!
>
> Just out of curiosity, why do we need to use round_jiffies here? We
> didn't do that for SCSI, right?
We don't have to, but given that we don't care about exact timeouts, we
may as well. It's not a new thing, we've done that since pretty much the
beginning of the generic timeout development.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-11-06 7:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-01 16:54 Problems with the block-layer timeouts Alan Stern
2008-11-02 20:35 ` Mike Anderson
2008-11-03 8:52 ` Jens Axboe
2008-11-03 14:18 ` James Smart
2008-11-03 17:23 ` Jens Axboe
2008-11-03 15:59 ` Alan Stern
2008-11-03 16:39 ` Tejun Heo
2008-11-03 17:07 ` Alan Stern
2008-11-03 17:27 ` Jens Axboe
2008-11-04 3:01 ` Tejun Heo
2008-11-06 0:01 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2008-11-06 7:23 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2008-11-07 4:05 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2008-11-07 11:24 ` Jens Axboe
2008-11-11 6:54 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2008-11-11 17:11 ` Alan Stern
2008-11-11 19:19 ` Jens Axboe
2008-11-12 2:08 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2008-11-13 10:34 ` Jens Axboe
2008-11-17 3:48 ` FUJITA Tomonori
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=20081106072352.GR21867@kernel.dk \
--to=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).