Hi Hannes,
On 2009/03/11 21:28 +0900, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> Hi Kiyoshi,
>
> Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
>> Hi Hannes,
>>
> [ .. ]
>>
>> Suspend was broken.
>> dm_suspend() recognized that suspend completed while some requests
>> were still in flight. So we could swap/free the in-use table while
>> there was in_flight request.
>> The patch is like the attached one, although it is not finalized and
>> I'm testing now.
>> I'll post an updated patch-set including the attached patch
>> this week or next week.
>>
>>
>> ---
>> drivers/md/dm.c | 236
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>> 1 file changed, 144 insertions(+), 92 deletions(-)
>>
>> Index: 2.6.29-rc2/drivers/md/dm.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- 2.6.29-rc2.orig/drivers/md/dm.c
>> +++ 2.6.29-rc2/drivers/md/dm.c
>> @@ -701,11 +701,17 @@ static void free_bio_clone(struct reques
>> }
>> }
>>
>> -static void dec_rq_pending(struct dm_rq_target_io *tio)
>> +/*
>> + * XXX: Not taking queue lock for efficiency.
>> + * For correctness, waiters will check that again with queue
>> lock held.
>> + * No false negative because this function will be called everytime
>> + * in_flight is decremented.
>> + */
>> +static void rq_completed(struct mapped_device *md)
>> {
>> - if (!atomic_dec_return(&tio->md->pending))
>> + if (!md->queue->in_flight)
>> /* nudge anyone waiting on suspend queue */
>> - wake_up(&tio->md->wait);
>> + wake_up(&md->wait);
>> }
>>
> Hmm. Don't think that's a good idea. Either take the spinlock here or
> in_flight should be atomic.
Thank you for the comment.
OK, I'll change to take queue_lock here for maintenancability now,
although the queue_lock is not needed logically.
Then, I'll have another patch to drop the queue_lock for efficiency
in the future.
Thanks,
Kiyoshi Ueda
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
