Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 20:19:11 +0100
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>
Cc: device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>, mchristi@redhat.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, agk@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH 1/8] rqbased-dm: allow blk_get_request()   to be called from interrupt context
Message-ID: <20061221191910.GE17199@kernel.dk>
References: <20061220184917.GJ10535@kernel.dk> <20061220.165549.39151582.k-ueda@ct.jp.nec.com> <20061221075305.GD17199@kernel.dk> <458ACB69.8000603@cs.wisc.edu> <458ACEB1.3030406@cs.wisc.edu> <20061221182432.GB17199@kernel.dk> <458AD2E0.40807@cs.wisc.edu> <458AD43C.3050603@cs.wisc.edu> <20061221184203.GD17199@kernel.dk> <458AD92D.5000901@cs.wisc.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <458AD92D.5000901@cs.wisc.edu>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3099
Lines: 80

On Thu, Dec 21 2006, Mike Christie wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 21 2006, Mike Christie wrote:
> >> Mike Christie wrote:
> >>> Jens Axboe wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Dec 21 2006, Mike Christie wrote:
> >>>>> Or the block layer code could set up the clone too. elv_next_request
> >>>>> could prep a clone based on the orignal request for the driver then dm
> >>>>> would not have to worry about that part.
> >>>> It really can't, since it doesn't know how to allocate the clone
> >>>> request. I'd rather export this functionality as helpers.
> >>>>
> >>> What do you think about dm's plan to break up make_request into a
> >>> mapping function and in to the part the builds the bio into a request.
> >>> This would fit well with them being helpers and being able to allocate
> >>> the request from the correct context.
> >>>
> >>> I see patches for that did not get posted, but I thought Joe and
> >>> Alasdair used to talk about that a lot and in the dm code I think there
> >>> is sill comments about doing it. Maybe the dm comments mentioned the
> >>> merge_fn, but I guess the merge_fn did not fit what they wanted to do or
> >>> something. I think Alasdair talked about this at one of his talks at OLS
> >>> or it was in a proposal for the kernel summit. I can dig up the mail if
> >>> you want.
> >>>
> >> Ignore that. The problem would be that we may not want to decide which
> >> path to use at map time.
> > 
> > Latter part, or both paragraphs? Dipping into ->make_request_fn() for
> > some parts do seem to make sense to me. It'll be cheaper than at
> > potential soft irq time (from elv_next_request()).
> > 
> 
> I think we got crisscrossed.
> 
> The original idea but using your helper suggestion would have been this:
> 
> dm->make_request_fn(bio)
> {
> 	rq = __make_request(bio)
> 	if (this is a new request) {
> 		allocate clone from either a real device/path specific mempool() or a
> dm q mempool
> }
> 
> 
> dm->prep_fn(rq)
> {
> 	setup clone rq fields based on orig request fields.
> }
> 
> dm->request_fn(rq)
> {
> 	figure out which path to use;
> 	set rq->q;
> 	send cloned rq to real device;
> }

This'll work nicely, much better.

> The second idea based on Joe and Alasdair to break up make_request would
> just have been a more formal break up of the dm->make_request_fn above,
> because I thought your comment about not knowing how to allocate the
> clone request meant that we did not know which q's mempool to take the
> request from if we were going to take the cloned request from the real
> device/path's mempool. I guess this does not really matter since we can
> have just a dm q mempool of requests to use for cloned requests.

Either approach is fine with me. Note that you need to be careful with
foreign requests on a queue, see the elevator drain logic for barriers
and scheduler switching.

-- 
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/