Re: [PATCH 05/10] block: remove per-queue plugging

[NeilBrown]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:38:24 +0200 Jens Axboe <jaxboe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 2011-04-18 00:19, NeilBrown wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 14:11:58 +0200 Jens Axboe <jaxboe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> >>> 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.
> >>
> > 
> > But you didn't did you?  You added a completely different patch which is
> > completely pointless.
> > If you don't like my patch I would really prefer you said so rather than
> > silently replace it with something completely different (and broken).
> 
> First of all, you were CC'ed on all that discussion, yet didn't speak up
> until now. This was last week. Secondly, please change your tone.

Yes, I was CC'ed on a discussion.  In that discussion it was never mentioned
that you had completely changed the patch I sent you, and it never contained
the new patch in-line for review.   Nothing that was discussed was
particularly relevant to md's needs so there was nothing to speak up about.

Yes- there were 'git pull' requests and I could have done a pull myself to
review the code but there seemed to be no urgency because you had already
agreed to apply my patch.
When I did finally pull the patches (after all the other issues had settle
down and I had time to finish of the RAID side) I found ... what I found.

I apologise for my tone, but I was very frustrated.

> 
> > I'll try to explain again.
> > 
> > md does not use __make_request.  At all.
> > md does not use 'struct request'.  At all.
> > 
> > The 'list' in 'struct blk_plug' is a list of 'struct request'.
> 
> I'm well aware of how these facts, but thanks for bringing it up.
> 
> > Therefore md cannot put anything useful on the list in 'struct blk_plug'.
> > 
> > So when blk_flush_plug_list calls queue_unplugged() on a queue that belonged
> > to a request found on the blk_plug list, that queue cannot possibly ever be
> > for an 'md' device (because no 'struct request' ever belongs to an md device,
> > because md doesn't not use 'struct request').
> > 
> > So your patch (commit f75664570d8b) doesn't help MD at all.
> > 
> > For md, I need to attach something to blk_plug which somehow identifies an md
> > device, so that blk_finish_plug can get to that device and let it unplug.
> > The most sensible thing to have is a completely generic callback.  That way
> > different block devices (which choose not to use __make_request) can attach
> > different sorts of things to blk_plug.
> > 
> > So can we please have my original patch applied? (Revised version using
> > list_splice_init included below).
> > 
> > Or if not, a clear explanation of why not?
> 
> So correct me if I'm wrong here, but the _only_ real difference between
> this patch and the current code in the tree, is the checking of the
> callback list indicating a need to flush the callbacks. And that's
> definitely an oversight. It should be functionally equivelant if md
> would just flag this need to get a callback, eg instead of queueing a
> callback on the list, just set plug->need_unplug from md instead of
> queuing a callback and have blk_needs_flush_plug() do:
> 
>         return plug && (!list_empty(&plug->list) || plug->need_unplug);
> 
> instead. Something like the below, completely untested.
> 

No, that is not the only real difference.

The real difference is that in the current code, md has no way to register
anything with a blk_plug because you can only register a 'struct request' on a
blk_plug, and md doesn't make any use of 'struct request'.

As I said in the Email you quote above:

> > Therefore md cannot put anything useful on the list in 'struct blk_plug'.

That is the heart of the problem.

NeilBrown


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/