From: "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
To: "'Kiyoshi Ueda'" <k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com>, <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Cc: <agk@redhat.com>, <mchristi@redhat.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       <dm-devel@redhat.com>, <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 1/8] rqbased-dm: allow blk_get_request() to be called from interrupt context
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:11:40 -0800
Message-ID: <000001c7246a$ae31c8a0$ff0da8c0@amr.corp.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Thread-Index: AcckX6wbJy1Mh0qMRyi6tXiuEosHVQACjdhg
In-Reply-To: <20061220.125002.71083198.k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1195
Lines: 29

Kiyoshi Ueda wrote on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 9:50 AM
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:48:49 +0100, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:
> > Big NACK on this - it's not only really ugly, it's also buggy to pass
> > interrupt flags as function arguments. As you also mention in the 0/1
> > mail, this also breaks CFQ.
> > 
> > Why do you need in-interrupt request allocation?
>  
> Because I'd like to use blk_get_request() in q->request_fn()
> which can be called from interrupt context like below:
>   scsi_io_completion -> scsi_end_request -> scsi_next_command
>   -> scsi_run_queue -> blk_run_queue -> q->request_fn
> 
> [ ...]
> 
> Do you think creating another function like blk_get_request_nowait()
> is acceptable?

You don't need to create another function.  blk_get_request already
have both wait and nowait semantics via gfp_mask argument. If you can
not block, then clear __GFP_WAIT bit in the mask before calling
blk_get_request.

- Ken
-
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/