Hello, Kent.
On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 05:28:10PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > > + while ((bio = bio_list_pop(current->bio_list)))
> > > + bio_list_add(bio->bi_pool == bs ? &punt : &nopunt, bio);
> > > +
> > > + *current->bio_list = nopunt;
> >
> > Why this is necessary needs explanation and it's done in rather
> > unusual way. I suppose the weirdness is from bio_list API
> > restriction?
>
> It's because bio_lists are singly linked, so deleting an entry from the
> middle of the list would be a real pain - just much cleaner/simpler to
> do it this way.
Yeah, I wonder how benefical that singly linked list is. Eh well...
> > Wouldn't the following be better?
> >
> > p = mempool_alloc(bs->bi_pool, gfp_mask);
> > if (unlikely(!p) && gfp_mask != saved_gfp) {
> > punt_bios_to_rescuer(bs);
> > p = mempool_alloc(bs->bi_pool, saved_gfp);
> > }
>
> That'd require duplicating the error handling in two different places -
> once for the initial allocation, once for the bvec allocation. And I
> really hate that writing code that does
>
> alloc_something()
> if (fail) {
> alloc_something_again()
> }
>
> it just screams ugly to me.
I don't know. That at least represents what's going on and goto'ing
back and forth is hardly pretty. Sometimes the code gets much uglier
/ unwieldy and we have to live with gotos. Here, that doesn't seem to
be the case.
> +static void punt_bios_to_rescuer(struct bio_set *bs)
> +{
> + struct bio_list punt, nopunt;
> + struct bio *bio;
> +
> + /*
> + * Don't want to punt all bios on current->bio_list; if there was a bio
> + * on there for a stacking driver higher up in the stack, processing it
> + * could require allocating bios from this bio_set, and we don't want to
> + * do that from our own rescuer.
Hmmm... isn't it more like we "must" process only the bios which are
from this bio_set to have any kind of forward-progress guarantee? The
above sounds like it's just something undesirable.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
