Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266195AbUALPNY (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:13:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266193AbUALPMj (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:12:39 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:60291 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266144AbUALPMc (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:12:32 -0500 Subject: Re: smp dead lock of io_request_lock/queue_lock patch From: Doug Ledford To: Jens Axboe Cc: Martin Peschke3 , Arjan Van de Ven , Peter Yao , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi mailing list In-Reply-To: <20040112141330.GH24638@suse.de> References: <20040112141330.GH24638@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1073920110.3114.268.camel@compaq.xsintricity.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-1) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:08:31 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2494 Lines: 54 On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 09:13, Jens Axboe wrote: > On Mon, Jan 12 2004, Martin Peschke3 wrote: > > Hi, > > > > is there a way to merge all (or at least the common denominator) of > > Redhat's and SuSE's changes into the vanilla 2.4 SCSI stack? > > The SCSI part of Marcelo's kernel seems to be rather backlevel, > > considering all those fixes and enhancements added by the mentioned > > distributors and their SCSI experts. As this discussion underlines, > > there are a lot of common problems and sometimes even common > > approaches. I am convinced that a number of patches ought to be > > incorporated into the mainline kernel. Though, I must admit > > that I am at a loss with how this could be achieved given the > > unresolved question of 2.4 SCSI maintenance > > (which has certainly played a part in building up those piles > > of SCSI patches). > > I have mixed feelings about that. One on side, I'd love to merge the > scalability patches in mainline. We've had a significant number of bugs > in this area in the past, and it seems a shame that we all have to fix > them independently because we deviate from mainline. Agreed (I've had to fix the iorl patch 3 or 4 times for things that weren't bugs in the iorl patch until mainline got updated with a new lock somewhere or things like that). > On the other hand, > 2.4 is pretty much closed. There wont be a big number of new distro 2.4 > kernels. > > Had you asked me 6 months ago I probably would have advocated merging > them, but right now I think it's a waste of time. >From my standpoint, we are going to be maintaining our 2.4 kernel RPMs for a long time, so my preference is to have it in mainline. On top of the performance stuff I have also been building some actual bug fix patches. They depend on the behavior of the patched kernels, and in some cases would be difficult to put on top of a non-iorl patched scsi stack. In any case, my current plans include putting my 2.4 scsi stack stuff up for perusal on linux-scsi.bkbits.net/scsi-dledford-2.4 as soon as I can sort through the patches and break them into small pieces. -- Doug Ledford 919-754-3700 x44233 Red Hat, Inc. 1801 Varsity Dr. Raleigh, NC 27606 - 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/