From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261994AbTFDAP5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2003 20:15:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262011AbTFDAP5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2003 20:15:57 -0400 Received: from dm2-85.slc.aros.net ([66.219.220.85]:56730 "EHLO cyprus") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261994AbTFDAPx (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jun 2003 20:15:53 -0400 Message-ID: <3EDD3D5F.3010509@aros.net> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 18:29:19 -0600 From: Lou Langholtz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030225 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.5.70 add_disk(disk) re-registering disk->queue->elevator.kobj (bug?!) References: <3EDCEA14.2000407@aros.net> <20030603120717.66012855.akpm@digeo.com> In-Reply-To: <20030603120717.66012855.akpm@digeo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: >Lou Langholtz 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