From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
To: Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cantab.net>
Cc: Martin Dalecki <dalecki@evision-ventures.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Neil Conway <nconway.list@ukaea.org.uk>,
Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.15 IDE 61
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 08:16:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020515061654.GC11948@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E177dYp-00083c-00@the-village.bc.nu> <5.1.0.14.2.20020514202811.01fcc1d0@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk>
On Tue, May 14 2002, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> At 15:30 14/05/02, Martin Dalecki wrote:
> >Uz.ytkownik Alan Cox napisa?:
> >>I think you are way off base. If you have a single queue for both hda and
> >>hdb then requests will get dumped into that in a way that processing that
> >>queue implicitly does the ordering you require.
> >>From an abstract hardware point of view each ide controller is a queue not
> >>each device. Not following that is I think the cause of much of the
> >>existing
> >>pain and suffering.
> >
> >Yes thinking about it longer and longer I tend to the same conclusion,
> >that we just shouldn't have per device queue but per channel queues
> >instead.
> >The only problem here is the fact that some device properties
> >are attached to the queue right now. Like for example sector size and
> >friends.
> >
> >I didn't have a too deep look in to the generic blk layer. But I would
> >rather expect that since the lower layers are allowed to pass
> >an spin lock up to the queue intialization, sharing a spin lock
> >between two request queues should just serialize them with respect to
> >each other. And this is precisely what 63 does.
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> instead of having per channel queue, you could have per device queue, but
> use the same lock for both, i.e. don't make the lock part of "struct queue"
> (or whatever it is called) but instead make the address of the lock be
> attached to "struct queue".
See request_queue_t, the lock can already be shared. And in fact the ide
layer used a global ide_lock shared between all queues until just
recently.
> Further if a controller is truly broken and you need to synchronize
> multiple channels you could share the lock among those.
Again, this is not enough! The lock will only, at best, serialize direct
queue actions. So I can share a lock between queue A and B and only one
of them will start a request at any given time, but as soon as request X
is started for queue A, then we can happily start request Y for queue B.
This is what the hwgroup busy flag protects right now, only one queue is
allowed to mark the hwgroup busy naturally. So only when request X for
queue A completes will the hwgroup busy flag be cleared, and queue B can
start request Y.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-05-15 6:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 46+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-05-14 9:49 [PATCH] 2.5.15 IDE 61 Neil Conway
2002-05-14 8:52 ` Martin Dalecki
2002-05-14 10:12 ` Neil Conway
2002-05-14 9:30 ` Martin Dalecki
2002-05-14 11:10 ` Neil Conway
2002-05-14 10:21 ` Martin Dalecki
2002-05-14 11:38 ` Russell King
2002-05-14 10:49 ` Martin Dalecki
2002-05-14 12:10 ` Alan Cox
2002-05-14 11:11 ` Martin Dalecki
2002-05-14 12:47 ` Alan Cox
2002-05-14 12:30 ` Martin Dalecki
2002-05-15 14:43 ` Pavel Machek
2002-05-14 12:00 ` Russell King
2002-05-14 11:03 ` Martin Dalecki
2002-05-14 13:03 ` Neil Conway
2002-05-14 13:27 ` Andre Hedrick
2002-05-14 14:45 ` Alan Cox
2002-05-14 14:30 ` Martin Dalecki
2002-05-14 16:20 ` Neil Conway
2002-05-14 16:32 ` Jens Axboe
2002-05-14 16:47 ` Neil Conway
2002-05-14 16:51 ` Jens Axboe
2002-05-15 11:37 ` Neil Conway
2002-05-14 22:51 ` Mike Fedyk
2002-05-14 16:26 ` Jens Axboe
2002-05-14 19:34 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-05-15 6:16 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2002-05-15 8:32 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-05-15 9:42 ` Martin Dalecki
2002-05-15 9:32 ` Martin Dalecki
2002-05-15 11:44 ` Neil Conway
2002-05-15 11:02 ` Martin Dalecki
2002-05-15 13:10 ` Alan Cox
2002-05-15 13:34 ` Neil Conway
2002-05-15 13:04 ` Martin Dalecki
2002-05-15 14:08 ` benh
2002-05-15 16:40 ` Denis Vlasenko
2002-05-15 11:55 ` Neil Conway
2002-05-17 7:07 ` Mike Fedyk
2002-05-17 11:06 ` Neil Conway
2002-05-17 10:12 ` Martin Dalecki
2002-05-14 16:03 ` Neil Conway
2002-05-14 16:46 ` Alan Cox
2002-05-14 12:52 ` Daniela Engert
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-05-06 3:53 Linux-2.5.14 Linus Torvalds
2002-05-13 9:48 ` [PATCH] 2.5.15 IDE 61 Martin Dalecki
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=20020515061654.GC11948@suse.de \
--to=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=aia21@cantab.net \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=dalecki@evision-ventures.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nconway.list@ukaea.org.uk \
--cc=rmk@arm.linux.org.uk \
/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