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

Re: [dm-devel] [patch] block: fix flush machinery for stacking drivers with differring flush flags



Shaohua Li <shli kernel org> writes:

> 2011/8/10 Jeff Moyer <jmoyer redhat com>:
>> @@ -320,6 +319,7 @@ void blk_insert_flush(struct request *rq)
>>        if ((policy & REQ_FSEQ_DATA) &&
>>            !(policy & (REQ_FSEQ_PREFLUSH | REQ_FSEQ_POSTFLUSH))) {
>>                list_add_tail(&rq->queuelist, &q->queue_head);
>> +               blk_run_queue_async(q);
> A minor issue. I can understand this is required for
> blk_insert_cloned_request() because INSERT_BACK will run
> queue but INSERT_FLUSH doesn't. But sounds we don't need
> run queue for normal requests. Either __make_request will run
> queue (task has plug list) or flush_plug will run queue. delaying
> run queue has its benefit. can we do the runqueue in
> blk_insert_cloned_request() if this is a INSERT_FLUSH.

Well, the only time we need to run the queue is when the request has
data, has REQ_FUA set, and the underlying queue's flush flags contain
only REQ_FUA.  In code:

if (rq->cmd_flags & REQ_FUA && q->flush_flags == REQ_FUA)
	blk_run_queue_async(q);

If that was added to blk_insert_cloned_request, we could get rid of the
blk_run_queue_async in blk_insert_flush.  However, I think Tejun will
object due to the layering violation for the same reason he doesn't like
my handling of empty flushes in blk_insert_cloned_request.

Tejun?

Cheers,
Jeff


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