Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264203AbTE0Uok (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2003 16:44:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264183AbTE0UoW (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2003 16:44:22 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:28823 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264174AbTE0UmJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 May 2003 16:42:09 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 22:55:16 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Marc-Christian Petersen Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Marcelo Tosatti , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger , manish , Christian Klose , William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: 2.4.20: Proccess stuck in __lock_page ... Message-ID: <20030527205516.GZ845@suse.de> References: <3ED2DE86.2070406@storadinc.com> <200305272032.03645.m.c.p@wolk-project.de> <20030527201028.GJ3767@dualathlon.random> <200305272224.22567.m.c.p@wolk-project.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200305272224.22567.m.c.p@wolk-project.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1398 Lines: 32 On Tue, May 27 2003, Marc-Christian Petersen wrote: > I try to backport BIO and then AS for quite over 2 weeks now, but it > seems, at least for me, that it's an impossible mission ;( You're nuts, that's not only incredibly silly it's not even needed for what you want. What you want is the proper io scheduler abstraction interface. With that in place, you can port the 2.5 io schedulers without too much trouble. They have very little dependencies on bio itself ('bio' has become on of the most abused terms in 2.5. I use it only to describe the io structure). You basically need to pin down users that directly manipulate the queue to extract/insert requests. So step one is doing elv_add_request(), elv_next_request, and elv_remove_request(). That is a 1:1 mapping to what 2.4 has right now, so you should be able to accomplish this change without changing how the code works. But still, why on earth waste your time with something like this now when we are so close to 2.6? 2.4 is a stable code base, it should stay that way. I'm really not interested in more esoteric 2.4 backports, the vendor kernels are bad enough as it is. -- Jens Axboe - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/