Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 16:55:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <20061220.165549.39151582.k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com>
To: 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, k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/8] rqbased-dm: allow blk_get_request() to be
 called from interrupt context
From: Kiyoshi Ueda <k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com>
In-Reply-To: <20061220184917.GJ10535@kernel.dk>
References: <20061220134848.GF10535@kernel.dk>
	<20061220.125002.71083198.k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com>
	<20061220184917.GJ10535@kernel.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2284
Lines: 55

Hi Jens,

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 19:49:17 +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
> > 
> > Generally, device-mapper (dm) clones an original I/O and dispatches
> > the clones to underlying destination devices.
> > In the request-based dm patch, the clone creation and the dispatch
> > are done in q->request_fn().  To create the clone, blk_get_request()
> > is used to get a request from underlying destination device's queue.
> > By doing that in q->request_fn(), dm can deal with struct request
> > after bios are merged by __make_request().
> > 
> > Do you think creating another function like blk_get_request_nowait()
> > is acceptable?
> > Or request should not be allocated in q->request_fn() anyway?
> 
> You should not be allocating requests from that path, for a number of
> reasons.

Could I hear the reasons for my further work if possible?
Because of breaking current CFQ?  And is there any reason?


> The design isn't very nice either.
> 
> The easy way out would be to punt to a workqueue to handle the requests.
> 
> An alternative way would be to set aside some requests that you can get
> at without allocation (maintain a little freelist of manually allocated
> requests), and retrieve a free one from there when inside request_fn. If
> you run out, just bail out of request_fn and make sure to reinvoke it
> when some of your previously issued requests complete and are added back
> to that freelist.

Thank you for the suggestions.
OK, I'll think other designs based on your suggestions.
 
Thanks,
Kiyoshi Ueda

-
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/