Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S945602AbXHMNmS (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Aug 2007 09:42:18 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758614AbXHMKGm (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Aug 2007 06:06:42 -0400 Received: from brick.kernel.dk ([87.55.233.238]:25999 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761485AbXHMKGk (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Aug 2007 06:06:40 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:06:37 +0200 From: Jens Axboe To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Evgeniy Polyakov , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra Subject: Re: Distributed storage. Message-ID: <20070813100636.GL23758@kernel.dk> References: <20070731171347.GA14267@2ka.mipt.ru> <200708130208.57542.phillips@phunq.net> <20070813091348.GJ23758@kernel.dk> <200708130255.35828.phillips@phunq.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200708130255.35828.phillips@phunq.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1955 Lines: 43 On Mon, Aug 13 2007, Daniel Phillips wrote: > On Monday 13 August 2007 02:13, Jens Axboe wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 13 2007, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > On Monday 13 August 2007 00:45, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 13 2007, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > > > You did not comment on the one about putting the bio > > > > > > destructor in the ->endio handler, which looks dead simple. > > > > > > The majority of cases just use the default endio handler and > > > > > > the default destructor. Of the remaining cases, where a > > > > > > specialized destructor is needed, typically a specialized > > > > > > endio handler is too, so combining is free. There are few if > > > > > > any cases where a new specialized endio handler would need to > > > > > > be written. > > > > > > > > > > We could do that without too much work, I agree. > > > > > > > > But that idea fails as well, since reference counts and IO > > > > completion are two completely seperate entities. So unless end IO > > > > just happens to be the last user holding a reference to the bio, > > > > you cannot free it. > > > > > > That is not a problem. When bio_put hits zero it calls ->endio > > > instead of the destructor. The ->endio sees that the count is zero > > > and destroys the bio. > > > > You can't be serious? You'd stall end io completion notification > > because someone holds a reference to a bio. > > Of course not. Nothing I said stops endio from being called in the > usual way as well. For this to work, endio just needs to know that one > call means "end" and the other means "destroy", this is trivial. Sorry Daniel, but your suggestions would do nothing more than uglify the code and design. -- 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/