[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [dm-devel] Block regression since 3.1-rc3



Hello, Mike.

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 03:56:12PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > I don't object to the immediate fix but think that adding such special
> > case is gonna make the thing even more brittle and make future changes
> > even more difficult.  Those one off cases tend to cause pretty severe
> > headache when someone wants to evolve common code, so let's please
> > find out what went wrong and fix it properly so that everyone follows
> > the same set of rules.
> 
> Are you referring to Jeff's fix as "the immediate fix"?  Christophe
> seems to have had success with it after all.

I meant reverting the previous commit.  Oops... it seems like I
misread Jeff's patch.  Please read on.

> As for the special case that you're suggesting makes the code more
> brittle, etc.  If you could be more specific that'd be awesome.

I was still talking about the previous attempt of making dm treated
special by flush machinery.  (the purity thing someone was talking
about)

> Jeff asked a question about the need to kick the queue in this case (as
> he didn't feel he had a proper justification for why it was needed).
> 
> If we can get a proper patch header together to justify Jeff's patch
> that'd be great.  And then revisit any of the special casing you'd like
> us to avoid in >= 3.2?
> 
> (we're obviously _very_ short on time for a 3.1 fix right now).
...
> > Hmmm... another rather nasty assumption the current flush code makes
> > is that every flush request has either zero or single bio attached to
> > it.  The assumption has always been there for quite some time now.
> 
> OK.
> 
> > That somehow seems broken by request based dm (either that or wrong
> > request is taking INSERT_FLUSH path).
> 
> Where was this issue of a flush having multiple bios reported?

I was misreading Jeff's patch, so the problem is request w/o bio
reaching INSERT_FLUSH, not rq's with multiple bio's.  Sorry about
that.  Having another look...

Ah, okay, so, blk-flush on the lower layer device is seeing
q->flush_rq of the upper layer which doesn't have bio.  Yes, the
BUG_ON() change looks correct to me.  That or we can do

  BUG_ON(rq->bio != rq->bio_tail); /* assumes zero or single bio rq */

As for the blk_run_queue_async(), it's a bit confusing.  Currently,
the block layer isn't clear about who's responsible kicking the queue
after putting a request onto elevator and I suppose Jeff put it there
because blk_insert_cloned_request() doesn't kick the queue.

Hmm... Jeff, you also added blk_run_queue_async() call in
4853abaae7e4a too.  Is there a reason why blk_insert_cloned_request()
isn't calling __blk_run_queue() or async variant of it like
blk_insert_request() does?

At any rate, the queue kicking is a different issue.  Let's not mix
the two here.  The BUG_ON() change looks good to me.

Thank you.

-- 
tejun


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]