Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 03:16:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 03:16:02 -0400 Received: from ns.virtualhost.dk ([195.184.98.160]:47364 "EHLO virtualhost.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 03:15:47 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 09:15:22 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Mike Anderson Cc: Dipankar Sarma , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: io_request_lock patch? Message-ID: <20010711091522.B17314@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <20010710172545.A8185@in.ibm.com> <20010710160512.A25632@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010710160512.A25632@us.ibm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 10 2001, Mike Anderson wrote: > The call to do_aic7xxx_isr appears that you are running the aic7xxx_old.c > code. This driver is using the io_request_lock to protect internal data. > The newer aic driver has its own lock. This is related to previous > comments by Jens and Eric about lower level use of this lock. Yes > I would like to know why the request_freelist is going empty? Having Well, it's a limited resource so it's bound to go empty when under load. In fact, if you have plenty of RAM this is what will end up starting I/O on the queued buffers. With the batch freeing of request slots, this is ok. > __get_request_wait being called alot would appear to be not optimal. ?? Care to explain your reasoning behind this statement. -- 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/