From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262498AbVFWN1A (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:27:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262216AbVFWNXg (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:23:36 -0400 Received: from e3.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.143]:18590 "EHLO e3.ny.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262406AbVFWNUK (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:20:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 18:59:26 +0530 From: Suparna Bhattacharya To: Benjamin LaHaise Cc: linux-aio@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: aio_down() patch series -- cancellation support added Message-ID: <20050623132926.GA6669@in.ibm.com> Reply-To: suparna@in.ibm.com References: <20050620213835.GA6628@kvack.org> <20050620214614.GC6628@kvack.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050620214614.GC6628@kvack.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 05:46:14PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > Add linux-kernel to the Cc list... > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 05:38:35PM -0400, Benjamin LaHaise wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > The patch series at http://www.kvack.org/~bcrl/patches/aio-2.6.12-A1/ > > now adds support for cancellation of an aio_down() operation. The > > races should be correctly handled by introducing per-kiocb locking > > that serialises ->ki_cancel() and ->ki_retry(). The interesting patch > > additions are 40_lock_kiocb 50_aio_down_cancel.diff. Comments? > > > > -ben > > -- One quick question. Since lock_kiocb() may block, does that mean that the aio worker thread could be put to sleep while an iocb cancellation is in progress, even though there may be other iocbs/ioctx's to process ? Looking at the rest a little more closely in terms of how everything will fit together, a few questions come to mind - need to think about it a little more. I guess the main reason you need the aio_down_wait callback is to make sure the semaphore is grabbed right in the context of the wakeup rather than at retry time, is that correct ? Regards Suparna -- Suparna Bhattacharya (suparna@in.ibm.com) Linux Technology Center IBM Software Lab, India