Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030284AbWLTTPu (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:15:50 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030291AbWLTTPu (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:15:50 -0500 Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([62.242.22.158]:7715 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030284AbWLTTPt (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:15:49 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 20:17:33 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: "Chen, Kenneth W" Cc: "'Kiyoshi Ueda'" , 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 Message-ID: <20061220191730.GL10535@kernel.dk> References: <20061220.125002.71083198.k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com> <000001c7246a$ae31c8a0$ff0da8c0@amr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000001c7246a$ae31c8a0$ff0da8c0@amr.corp.intel.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1586 Lines: 40 On Wed, Dec 20 2006, Chen, Kenneth W wrote: > Kiyoshi Ueda wrote on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 9:50 AM > > On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:48:49 +0100, Jens Axboe 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. Doesn't work, get_request() assumes that the caller grabbed the queue lock and disabled interrupts, and does an unconditionaly spin_unlock_irq() inside it. So you can NEVER use get_request() for even GFP_ATOMIC allocations, as it assumes the original context was a process context. -- 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/