Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754254Ab1DKMMD (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:12:03 -0400 Received: from mx1.fusionio.com ([64.244.102.30]:41079 "EHLO mx1.fusionio.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752379Ab1DKMMA (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Apr 2011 08:12:00 -0400 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1302523919-03d6a569fb87010001-xx1T2L X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: JAxboe@fusionio.com Message-ID: <4DA2F00E.6010907@fusionio.com> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:11:58 +0200 From: Jens Axboe MIME-Version: 1.0 To: NeilBrown CC: Mike Snitzer , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "hch@infradead.org" , "dm-devel@redhat.com" , "linux-raid@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] block: remove per-queue plugging References: <1295659049-2688-1-git-send-email-jaxboe@fusionio.com> <1295659049-2688-6-git-send-email-jaxboe@fusionio.com> <20110303221353.GA10366@redhat.com> <4D761E0D.8050200@fusionio.com> <20110308202100.GA31744@redhat.com> <4D76912C.9040705@fusionio.com> <20110308220526.GA393@redhat.com> <20110310005810.GA17911@redhat.com> <20110405130541.6c2b5f86@notabene.brown> <20110411145022.710c30e9@notabene.brown> <4DA2C7BE.6060804@fusionio.com> <20110411205928.13915719@notabene.brown> <4DA2E03A.2080607@fusionio.com> <20110411212635.7959de70@notabene.brown> <4DA2E7F0.9010904@fusionio.com> <20110411220505.1028816e@notabene.brown> X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [PATCH 05/10] block: remove per-queue plugging In-Reply-To: <20110411220505.1028816e@notabene.brown> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Barracuda-Connect: mail1.int.fusionio.com[10.101.1.21] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1302523919 X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.101.1.180:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.60540 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3602 Lines: 83 On 2011-04-11 14:05, NeilBrown wrote: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:37:20 +0200 Jens Axboe wrote: > >> On 2011-04-11 13:26, NeilBrown wrote: >>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:04:26 +0200 Jens Axboe wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm sure one of us is missing something (probably both) but I'm not >>>>> sure what. >>>>> >>>>> The callback is central. >>>>> >>>>> It is simply to use plugging in md. >>>>> Just like blk-core, md will notice that a blk_plug is active and will put >>>>> requests aside. I then need something to call in to md when blk_finish_plug >>>> >>>> But this is done in __make_request(), so md devices should not be >>>> affected at all. This is the part of your explanation that I do not >>>> connect with the code. >>>> >>>> If md itself is putting things on the plug list, why is it doing that? >>> >>> Yes. Exactly. md itself want to put things aside on some list. >>> e.g. in RAID1 when using a write-intent bitmap I want to gather as many write >>> requests as possible so I can update the bits for all of them at once. >>> So when a plug is in effect I just queue the bios somewhere and record the >>> bits that need to be set. >>> Then when the unplug happens I write out the bitmap updates in a single write >>> and when that completes, I write out the data (to all devices). >>> >>> Also in RAID5 it is good if I can wait for lots of write request to arrive >>> before committing any of them to increase the possibility of getting a >>> full-stripe write. >>> >>> Previously I used ->unplug_fn to release the queued requests. Now that has >>> gone I need a different way to register a callback when an unplug happens. >> >> Ah, so this is what I was hinting at. But why use the task->plug for >> that? Seems a bit counter intuitive. Why can't you just store these >> internally? >> >>> >>>> >>>>> is called so that put-aside requests can be released. >>>>> As md can be built as a module, that call must be a call-back of some sort. >>>>> blk-core doesn't need to register blk_plug_flush because that is never in a >>>>> module, so it can be called directly. But the md equivalent could be in a >>>>> module, so I need to be able to register a call back. >>>>> >>>>> Does that help? >>>> >>>> Not really. Is the problem that _you_ would like to stash things aside, >>>> not the fact that __make_request() puts things on a task plug list? >>>> >>> >>> Yes, exactly. I (in md) want to stash things aside. >>> >>> (I don't actually put the stashed things on the blk_plug, though it might >>> make sense to do that later in some cases - I'm not sure. Currently I stash >>> things in my own internal lists and just need a call back to say "ok, flush >>> those lists now"). >> >> So we are making some progress... The thing I then don't understand is >> why you want to make it associated with the plug? Seems you don't have >> any scheduling restrictions, and in which case just storing them in md >> seems like a much better option. >> > > Yes. But I need to know when to release the requests that I have stored. > I need to know when ->write_pages or ->read_pages or whatever has finished > submitting a pile of pages so that I can start processing the request that I > have put aside. So I need a callback from blk_finish_plug. OK fair enough, I'll add your callback patch. -- 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/