On Fri, Jun 26 2009, Neil Brown wrote: > On Thursday June 25, jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 25 2009, NeilBrown wrote: > > > > You seem to be hung up on the fact that you don't queue things. I think > > > > that's beside the point. You *do* have a request_queue thanks to > > > > calling blk_queue_make_request() in md.c. And there is more to > > > > request_queue than the values you brought up. Like the callback > > > > functions. I'm not saying that all the values in request_queue apply to > > > > MD, but I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. Other > > > > than the presence of the string "queue" in the choice of naming. > > > > > > > > > > Well names are very important. And as I said later we could possibly keep > > > them in 'queue' and make 'queue' a more generic directory. I don't like > > > that but it is probably better than the current situation. > > > > Sorry to ask the obvious question, but what would the point of all this > > pain be? The existing values can't go anywhere else, so you'd have to > > add symlinks back into queue/ anyway. > > Why cannot the existing values go any where else? I don't understand > that assertion at all. Because it's an exported interface, we can't just move things around at will. > > > As you say, I do currently have a request_queue, but that is an internal > > > detail, not part of the externally visible interface, and it is something > > > that is very much in my sights as something I want to change. I'm > > > still working out the details so I'm a fair way from a concrete proposal > > > and a long way from some code. That change certainly doesn't have > > > to happen in any rush. But we should get the externally visible > > > names "right" if we can. > > > > What crack are you smoking? :-) > > I have a special mix of crack that helps me see Patterns everywhere, > even in C code. Some patterns are bright, shiny, and elegant. Others > are muddy and confused. struct request_queue has a distinct shadow > over it just now. > > > > > A block device must have a request_queue, that's pretty much spread > > throughout the kernel. The fact that md/dm is only using a subset of the > > functionality is not a very good reason for re-writing large parts of > > that design. We could save some space, but whether the queue is 200 > > bytes or 1400 bytes doesn't really make a whole lot of real-world > > difference. It's not like we allocate/deallocate these all the time, > > they are mostly static structures. > > It isn't about saving space. It is about maintainability. To be > maintainable, the code must be easy to understand. For that, it must > be well structured. > > Every block device has a 'gendisk' (aka generic disk). > Every block device also (currently) has a request_queue. I don't know why you keep saying currently. It has always had a queue, and I don't see a good reason why that should change for "special" block devices like md/dm/loop/whatnot. > If I have generic data that is applicable to all disks, where should I > put it? One would think "gendisk". > If I have data that is related to request handling (as in uses of > 'struct request'), where should that go? in request_queue I suspect. > But there are several fields in request_queue that are not related to > requests, and are generic to all disks. It is indeed a bit of a toss-up there, since we do a queue associated with each gendisk. > I think "generic data goes in gendisk" is something that it would be > easy for people to understand. > The current 'topology' values are intended to be generic to all disks > so they should ideally go in gendisk. I'm not pushing for that now. > Longer term, that would be my aim, but for now I'm just focussing on > restoring the 'queue' subdirectory to it's previous non-generic state. > > i.e. revert the change that made 'queue' appear for md and dm and loop > and nbd and .... which have all never needed it before. > And find somewhere else to put the topology data - probably just the > top level. > i.e. add the names as DEVICE_ATTRs in genhd.c, and write the 'show' > routine to dereference ->queue carefully, just like > disk_alignment_offset_show. > (oooo... just noticed that the 'alignment_offset' attribute can > contain the string '-1'.... while I have been guilty of that sort of > thing myself, I would much rather it said "misaligned".) > > > As for how intrusive vs beneficial it would be to move all the generic > fields out of request_queue and allow md to not have a request queue, > that will have to be a discussion for another day. I do hope to > eventually present you with a series of patches which does just that. > My aim would be to make sure each one was clearly beneficial. And I > do have a grand vision involving this which is more than just tidying > up some small in-elegances. Only time will tell how it eventuates. > > > But for now, please please please can we revert the change which made > 'queue' appear in md and dm devices, (and loop and ...) and put these > generic values somewhere ... generic? No we cannot, not without a time machine. 2.6.30 is released, so it's too late to revert things like that, even if we wanted. -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
