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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox