From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S275248AbTHGJ0y (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Aug 2003 05:26:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S275249AbTHGJ0y (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Aug 2003 05:26:54 -0400 Received: from dyn-ctb-203-221-72-79.webone.com.au ([203.221.72.79]:35848 "EHLO chimp.local.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S275248AbTHGJ0w (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Aug 2003 05:26:52 -0400 Message-ID: <3F321B4A.6060403@cyberone.com.au> Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 19:26:34 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030618 Debian/1.3.1-3 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jens Axboe CC: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , linux-kernel Subject: Re: queue reference counting References: <20030806232810.GA1623@elf.ucw.cz> <20030806234036.GA209@elf.ucw.cz> <20030807080251.GY7982@suse.de> <3F3219DC.4070608@cyberone.com.au> <20030807092237.GB858@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20030807092237.GB858@suse.de> 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 Jens Axboe wrote: >On Thu, Aug 07 2003, Nick Piggin wrote: > >> >>Jens Axboe wrote: >> >> >>>On Thu, Aug 07 2003, Pavel Machek wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Hi! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>I ported `subj` to 2.6.0-test2. I do not yet have idea if it works, >>>>>but it compiles ;-). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>It compiles, it event boots, but it does not seem to have much effect >>>>:-(. >>>> >>>> >>>Now that the queue reference counting is in the current bk tree, we are >>>that much closer to real modular io schedulers. I'll post the cfq with >>>priorities for that. >>> >>> >>OK, the QUEUE_FLAG_DEAD. I assume that will be set in blk_cleanup_queue? >>Then all remaining requests are flushed out of the queue? >> >>This requires that a driver must be able to continue to process requests >>during the call to blk_cleanup_queue, and that blk_cleanup_queue might >>block, right? Is this acceptable, or should there be an earlier call to >>set QUEUE_FLAG_DEAD and ensure queue is flushed? >> > >The plan was to add blk_shutdown_queue() to do this. And then make sure >AS checks the dead flag and doesn't hold back any requests. > Sounds sensible. Just ensuring I wasn't missing out on the fun.