linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
To: Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com>
Cc: dm-devel@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
	"Jun'ichi Nomura" <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
	Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] dm: only initialize full request_queue for request-based device
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 09:15:02 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100511131502.GA25211@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BE8DBB0.5060701@ct.jp.nec.com>

On Tue, May 11 2010 at 12:23am -0400,
Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com> wrote:

> Hi Mike,
> 
> On 05/11/2010 07:55 AM +0900, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > Revert back to only allocating a minimalist request_queue structure
> > initially (needed for both bio and request-based DM).  Initialization of
> > a full request_queue (request_fn, elevator, etc) is deferred until it is
> > known that the DM device is request-based.
> 
> Thank you for working on this.
> However, I still disagree with this patch as we discussed on this thread:
> http://marc.info/?t=124990138700003&r=1&w=2
> (Exporting a part of queue's features may cause some maintenance costs
>  in future.)

Thanks for the reference.  I completely forgot about that thread (even
though I responded to Nikanth's patches in detail! :)

It is clear we need to resolve the current full request_queue
initialization that occurs even for bio-based DM devices.

I believe the 2 patches I posted accomplish this in a stright-forward
way.  We can always improve on it (by looking at what you proposed
below) but we need a minimlaist fix that doesn't depend on userspace
LVM2 changes right now.

Interestingly, having to revisit this issue (forgetting that this line
of work was already explored) I came up with roughly the same type of
change to the block layer as Nikanth's 1/2 patch.  The difference being
my blk_init_allocated_queue is more minimalist because the block code
has evolved to allow this change to be more natural.

Similarly, my proposed DM changes are also quite natural.  By using
dm_table_set_type() as the hook to initialize the request-based DM
device's elevator we perform allocations during table load.

Having just looked at Nikanth's proposed DM patch 2/2 again it shows
that blk_init_allocated_queue(), which allocates memory, was being
called during resume (dm_swap_table).  Allocations are not allowed
during resume.

> As I mentioned on the last email of the thread above (see below),
> specifying device type at the device creation time by userspace tools
> should make dm code very simple.  So that may be a better approach.
> 
> > By the way, another approach to optimizing the memory usage would be
> > to determine whether the dm device is bio-based or request-based
> > at the device creation time, instead of the table binding time.
> > We want the delayed allocation, since kernel can't decide the device
> > type until the first table is bound because of the auto-detection
> > mechanism.  The auto-detection is good for keeping compatibility with
> > existing user-space tools.  But once user-space tools are changed to
> > specify device type at the device creation time, we can eventually
> > remove the auto-detection.
> > Then, kernel can decide device type in alloc_dev(), so
> > the initialization code in kernel will become very simple.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kiyoshi Ueda

  reply	other threads:[~2010-05-11 13:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-05-10 22:55 [RFC PATCH 1/2] block: allow initialization of previously allocated request_queue Mike Snitzer
2010-05-10 22:55 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] dm: only initialize full request_queue for request-based device Mike Snitzer
2010-05-11  4:23   ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-11 13:15     ` Mike Snitzer [this message]
2010-05-12  8:23       ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-13  3:57         ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-14  8:06           ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-14 14:08             ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-17  9:27               ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-17 17:27                 ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-18  8:32                   ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-18 13:46                     ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-19  5:57                       ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-19 12:01                         ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-19 14:39                           ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-19 14:45                             ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-20 11:21                             ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-20 17:07                               ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-21  8:32                                 ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-21 13:34                                   ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-24  9:58                                     ` Kiyoshi Ueda
2010-05-19 21:51                           ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-13  4:31   ` [PATCH 2/2 v2] " Mike Snitzer
2010-05-13  5:02     ` [RFC PATCH 3/2] dm: bio-based device must not register elevator in sysfs Mike Snitzer
2010-05-13 22:14       ` [PATCH 3/2 v2] " Mike Snitzer
2010-05-11  6:55 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] block: allow initialization of previously allocated request_queue Jens Axboe
2010-05-11 13:18   ` Mike Snitzer
2010-05-11 13:21     ` Jens Axboe

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=20100511131502.GA25211@redhat.com \
    --to=snitzer@redhat.com \
    --cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
    --cc=j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com \
    --cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com \
    --cc=knikanth@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    /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).