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

From: NeilBrown
Date: Mon Apr 11 2011 - 08:05:42 EST

On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:37:20 +0200 Jens Axboe <jaxboe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 2011-04-11 13:26, NeilBrown wrote:
> > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:04:26 +0200 Jens Axboe <jaxboe@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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.

(and I also need to know if a thread that was plugging schedules for the same
reason that you do).


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at