From: Lou Langholtz <ldl@aros.net>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.5.70 add_disk(disk) re-registering disk->queue->elevator.kobj (bug?!)
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 18:29:19 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3EDD3D5F.3010509@aros.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030603120717.66012855.akpm@digeo.com>
Andrew Morton wrote:
>Lou Langholtz <ldl@aros.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Or perhaps the block
>>handling logic was changed such that disks don't share the same
>>request_queue anymore. If so, then a few drivers (like nbd) need to be
>>updated to use a seperate request_queue per disk.
>>
>>
>
>The ramdisk driver was recently changed to do exactly this. From what
>you say it appears that nbd needs the same treatment.
>
>
I noticed that too but thought surely that couldn't be why the rd driver
was changes. Cause... then it would seem via 'grep blk_init_queue
drivers/block/*.c' that most of the block drivers need to be changed.
And having a request_queue structure for every disk that's often (in
these drivers) every minor device, seems like a lot of unneeded memory
usage too. I'm afraid to ask this, but are you sure that each disk
really is supposed to have its own request queue now? That seems less
sensible than inverting the kobject parenting logic so that the
request_queue.elevator kobject is the parent of the disk kobject. After
all, makes more sense for multiple gen_disk objects to belong to the
same elevator than for multiple elevators to belong to the same gen_disk
no???
Anyways.... thanks for setting me straight ;-)
Lou
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-06-04 0:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-06-03 18:33 2.5.70 add_disk(disk) re-registering disk->queue->elevator.kobj (bug?!) Lou Langholtz
2003-06-03 19:07 ` Andrew Morton
2003-06-04 0:29 ` Lou Langholtz [this message]
2003-06-04 0:56 ` viro
2003-06-04 16:08 ` Patrick Mochel
2003-06-04 1:00 ` Andrew Morton
2003-06-04 1:06 ` viro
2003-06-04 16:07 ` Lou Langholtz
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=3EDD3D5F.3010509@aros.net \
--to=ldl@aros.net \
--cc=akpm@digeo.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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