On 06/18/2012 06:21 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:53:10PM +0800, Asias He wrote:
+static void virtblk_make_request(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio)
+{
+ struct virtio_blk *vblk = q->queuedata;
+ unsigned int num, out = 0, in = 0;
+ struct virtblk_req *vbr;
+
+ BUG_ON(bio->bi_phys_segments + 2 > vblk->sg_elems);
+ BUG_ON(bio->bi_rw & (REQ_FLUSH | REQ_FUA));
+
+ vbr = virtblk_alloc_req(vblk, GFP_NOIO);
+ if (!vbr) {
+ bio_endio(bio, -ENOMEM);
+ return;
+ }
+
+ vbr->bio = bio;
+ vbr->req = NULL;
+ vbr->out_hdr.type = 0;
+ vbr->out_hdr.sector = bio->bi_sector;
+ vbr->out_hdr.ioprio = bio_prio(bio);
+
+ sg_set_buf(&vbr->sg[out++], &vbr->out_hdr, sizeof(vbr->out_hdr));
+
+ num = blk_bio_map_sg(q, bio, vbr->sg + out);
+
+ sg_set_buf(&vbr->sg[num + out + in++], &vbr->status,
+ sizeof(vbr->status));
+
+ if (num) {
+ if (bio->bi_rw & REQ_WRITE) {
+ vbr->out_hdr.type |= VIRTIO_BLK_T_OUT;
+ out += num;
+ } else {
+ vbr->out_hdr.type |= VIRTIO_BLK_T_IN;
+ in += num;
+ }
+ }
+
+ spin_lock_irq(vblk->disk->queue->queue_lock);
+ if (virtqueue_add_buf(vblk->vq, vbr->sg, out, in, vbr,
+ GFP_ATOMIC) < 0) {
+ spin_unlock_irq(vblk->disk->queue->queue_lock);
Any implications of dropping lock like that?
E.g. for suspend. like we are still discussing with
unlocked kick?
+ virtblk_add_buf_wait(vblk, vbr, out, in);
+ } else {
+ virtqueue_kick(vblk->vq);
Why special case the first call? task state manipulation so expensive?
Hmm. Will switch them.
+ spin_unlock_irq(vblk->disk->queue->queue_lock);
+ }
+}
+
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Asias
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
