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
next prev parent 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).