Re: [PATCH 12/30] blk_end_request: changing ub (take 4)
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:04:54 -0500 (EST), Kiyoshi Ueda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have investigated all code paths which call ub_end_rq() in ub.c, > and confirmed that ub_end_rq() is always called with the queue lock > held. (sc->lock is registered as a queue lock.) Thanks for reminding me about blk_init_queue, I forgot. Sorry for the confusion. Greetings, -- Pete -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 12/30] blk_end_request: changing ub (take 4)
Hi Pete, On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:59:16 -0800, Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > - end_that_request_first(rq, uptodate, rq->hard_nr_sectors); > > > > - end_that_request_last(rq, uptodate); > > > > + if (__blk_end_request(rq, error, blk_rq_bytes(rq))) > > > > + BUG(); > > > > > > My understanding was, blk_end_request() is the same thing, only > > > takes the queue lock. But then, should I refactor ub so that it > > > calls __blk_end_request if request function ends with an error > > > and blk_end_request if the end-of-IO even is processed? > > > > I'm using __blk_end_request() here and I think it's sufficient, because: > > o end_that_request_last() must be called with the queue lock held > > o ub_end_rq() calls end_that_request_last() without taking > > the queue lock in itself. > > So the queue lock must have been taken outside ub_end_rq(). > > > > But, if ub is calling end_that_request_last() without the queue lock, > > it is a bug in the original code and we should use blk_end_request() > > to fix that. > > So, I have to rewrite ub to split the paths after all, right? > Let's do this then: I'll wait until your patch gets to Linus and > then update it with the split. The reason is, I need the whole > enchilada applied and I don't want to bother tracking iterations > and all the little segments (of which you already have 30). > Until then, ub will have a race by using your original small patch. No. Are you doubting that the current ub code has the problem, aren't you? My patch shouldn't introduce a NEW problem to ub. I have investigated all code paths which call ub_end_rq() in ub.c, and confirmed that ub_end_rq() is always called with the queue lock held. (sc->lock is registered as a queue lock.) So there is no such race in the current ub code. You don't need to rewrite ub. Thanks, Kiyoshi Ueda -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 12/30] blk_end_request: changing ub (take 4)
Hi Pete, On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 13:59:16 -0800, Pete Zaitcev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - end_that_request_first(rq, uptodate, rq-hard_nr_sectors); - end_that_request_last(rq, uptodate); + if (__blk_end_request(rq, error, blk_rq_bytes(rq))) + BUG(); My understanding was, blk_end_request() is the same thing, only takes the queue lock. But then, should I refactor ub so that it calls __blk_end_request if request function ends with an error and blk_end_request if the end-of-IO even is processed? I'm using __blk_end_request() here and I think it's sufficient, because: o end_that_request_last() must be called with the queue lock held o ub_end_rq() calls end_that_request_last() without taking the queue lock in itself. So the queue lock must have been taken outside ub_end_rq(). But, if ub is calling end_that_request_last() without the queue lock, it is a bug in the original code and we should use blk_end_request() to fix that. So, I have to rewrite ub to split the paths after all, right? Let's do this then: I'll wait until your patch gets to Linus and then update it with the split. The reason is, I need the whole enchilada applied and I don't want to bother tracking iterations and all the little segments (of which you already have 30). Until then, ub will have a race by using your original small patch. No. Are you doubting that the current ub code has the problem, aren't you? My patch shouldn't introduce a NEW problem to ub. I have investigated all code paths which call ub_end_rq() in ub.c, and confirmed that ub_end_rq() is always called with the queue lock held. (sc-lock is registered as a queue lock.) So there is no such race in the current ub code. You don't need to rewrite ub. Thanks, Kiyoshi Ueda -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 12/30] blk_end_request: changing ub (take 4)
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:04:54 -0500 (EST), Kiyoshi Ueda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have investigated all code paths which call ub_end_rq() in ub.c, and confirmed that ub_end_rq() is always called with the queue lock held. (sc-lock is registered as a queue lock.) Thanks for reminding me about blk_init_queue, I forgot. Sorry for the confusion. Greetings, -- Pete -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 12/30] blk_end_request: changing ub (take 4)
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:38:15 -0500 (EST), Kiyoshi Ueda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:48:03 -0800, Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > - end_that_request_first(rq, uptodate, rq->hard_nr_sectors); > > > - end_that_request_last(rq, uptodate); > > > + if (__blk_end_request(rq, error, blk_rq_bytes(rq))) > > > + BUG(); > > My understanding was, blk_end_request() is the same thing, only > > takes the queue lock. But then, should I refactor ub so that it > > calls __blk_end_request if request function ends with an error > > and blk_end_request if the end-of-IO even is processed? > I'm using __blk_end_request() here and I think it's sufficient, because: > o end_that_request_last() must be called with the queue lock held > o ub_end_rq() calls end_that_request_last() without taking > the queue lock in itself. > So the queue lock must have been taken outside ub_end_rq(). > But, if ub is calling end_that_request_last() without the queue lock, > it is a bug in the original code and we should use blk_end_request() > to fix that. So, I have to rewrite ub to split the paths after all, right? Let's do this then: I'll wait until your patch gets to Linus and then update it with the split. The reason is, I need the whole enchilada applied and I don't want to bother tracking iterations and all the little segments (of which you already have 30). Until then, ub will have a race by using your original small patch. Best wishes, -- Pete -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 12/30] blk_end_request: changing ub (take 4)
On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:38:15 -0500 (EST), Kiyoshi Ueda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:48:03 -0800, Pete Zaitcev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - end_that_request_first(rq, uptodate, rq-hard_nr_sectors); - end_that_request_last(rq, uptodate); + if (__blk_end_request(rq, error, blk_rq_bytes(rq))) + BUG(); My understanding was, blk_end_request() is the same thing, only takes the queue lock. But then, should I refactor ub so that it calls __blk_end_request if request function ends with an error and blk_end_request if the end-of-IO even is processed? I'm using __blk_end_request() here and I think it's sufficient, because: o end_that_request_last() must be called with the queue lock held o ub_end_rq() calls end_that_request_last() without taking the queue lock in itself. So the queue lock must have been taken outside ub_end_rq(). But, if ub is calling end_that_request_last() without the queue lock, it is a bug in the original code and we should use blk_end_request() to fix that. So, I have to rewrite ub to split the paths after all, right? Let's do this then: I'll wait until your patch gets to Linus and then update it with the split. The reason is, I need the whole enchilada applied and I don't want to bother tracking iterations and all the little segments (of which you already have 30). Until then, ub will have a race by using your original small patch. Best wishes, -- Pete -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 12/30] blk_end_request: changing ub (take 4)
Hi Pete,
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:48:03 -0800, Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > if (scsi_status == 0) {
> > - uptodate = 1;
> > + error = 0;
> > } else {
> > - uptodate = 0;
> > + error = -EIO;
> > rq->errors = scsi_status;
> > }
> > - end_that_request_first(rq, uptodate, rq->hard_nr_sectors);
> > - end_that_request_last(rq, uptodate);
> > + if (__blk_end_request(rq, error, blk_rq_bytes(rq)))
> > + BUG();
>
> Acked-by: Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I follow the discussion, actually, and wanted to ask someone to look
> closer if it's appropriate to use __blk_end_request() here.
> My understanding was, blk_end_request() is the same thing, only
> takes the queue lock. But then, should I refactor ub so that it
> calls __blk_end_request if request function ends with an error
> and blk_end_request if the end-of-IO even is processed? If not,
> and the above is sufficient, why have blk_end_request at all?
The difference between blk_end_request() and __blk_end_request() is
whether the queue lock is held or not when end_that_request_last()
is called.
It's not relevant to the status of the request (error or not).
I'm using __blk_end_request() here and I think it's sufficient, because:
o end_that_request_last() must be called with the queue lock held
o ub_end_rq() calls end_that_request_last() without taking
the queue lock in itself.
So the queue lock must have been taken outside ub_end_rq().
But, if ub is calling end_that_request_last() without the queue lock,
it is a bug in the original code and we should use blk_end_request()
to fix that.
Does that answer satisfy you?
Thanks,
Kiyoshi Ueda
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 12/30] blk_end_request: changing ub (take 4)
Hi Pete,
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:48:03 -0800, Pete Zaitcev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if (scsi_status == 0) {
- uptodate = 1;
+ error = 0;
} else {
- uptodate = 0;
+ error = -EIO;
rq-errors = scsi_status;
}
- end_that_request_first(rq, uptodate, rq-hard_nr_sectors);
- end_that_request_last(rq, uptodate);
+ if (__blk_end_request(rq, error, blk_rq_bytes(rq)))
+ BUG();
Acked-by: Pete Zaitcev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I follow the discussion, actually, and wanted to ask someone to look
closer if it's appropriate to use __blk_end_request() here.
My understanding was, blk_end_request() is the same thing, only
takes the queue lock. But then, should I refactor ub so that it
calls __blk_end_request if request function ends with an error
and blk_end_request if the end-of-IO even is processed? If not,
and the above is sufficient, why have blk_end_request at all?
The difference between blk_end_request() and __blk_end_request() is
whether the queue lock is held or not when end_that_request_last()
is called.
It's not relevant to the status of the request (error or not).
I'm using __blk_end_request() here and I think it's sufficient, because:
o end_that_request_last() must be called with the queue lock held
o ub_end_rq() calls end_that_request_last() without taking
the queue lock in itself.
So the queue lock must have been taken outside ub_end_rq().
But, if ub is calling end_that_request_last() without the queue lock,
it is a bug in the original code and we should use blk_end_request()
to fix that.
Does that answer satisfy you?
Thanks,
Kiyoshi Ueda
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 12/30] blk_end_request: changing ub (take 4)
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:46:47 -0500 (EST), Kiyoshi Ueda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> if (scsi_status == 0) {
> - uptodate = 1;
> + error = 0;
> } else {
> - uptodate = 0;
> + error = -EIO;
> rq->errors = scsi_status;
> }
> - end_that_request_first(rq, uptodate, rq->hard_nr_sectors);
> - end_that_request_last(rq, uptodate);
> + if (__blk_end_request(rq, error, blk_rq_bytes(rq)))
> + BUG();
Acked-by: Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I follow the discussion, actually, and wanted to ask someone to look
closer if it's appropriate to use __blk_end_request() here.
My understanding was, blk_end_request() is the same thing, only
takes the queue lock. But then, should I refactor ub so that it
calls __blk_end_request if request function ends with an error
and blk_end_request if the end-of-IO even is processed? If not,
and the above is sufficient, why have blk_end_request at all?
-- Pete
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH 12/30] blk_end_request: changing ub (take 4)
This patch converts ub to use blk_end_request interfaces.
Related 'uptodate' arguments are converted to 'error'.
Cc: Pete Zaitcev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Kiyoshi Ueda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Jun'ichi Nomura <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
drivers/block/ub.c | 10 +-
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
Index: 2.6.24-rc4/drivers/block/ub.c
===
--- 2.6.24-rc4.orig/drivers/block/ub.c
+++ 2.6.24-rc4/drivers/block/ub.c
@@ -808,16 +808,16 @@ static void ub_rw_cmd_done(struct ub_dev
static void ub_end_rq(struct request *rq, unsigned int scsi_status)
{
- int uptodate;
+ int error;
if (scsi_status == 0) {
- uptodate = 1;
+ error = 0;
} else {
- uptodate = 0;
+ error = -EIO;
rq->errors = scsi_status;
}
- end_that_request_first(rq, uptodate, rq->hard_nr_sectors);
- end_that_request_last(rq, uptodate);
+ if (__blk_end_request(rq, error, blk_rq_bytes(rq)))
+ BUG();
}
static int ub_rw_cmd_retry(struct ub_dev *sc, struct ub_lun *lun,
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH 12/30] blk_end_request: changing ub (take 4)
This patch converts ub to use blk_end_request interfaces.
Related 'uptodate' arguments are converted to 'error'.
Cc: Pete Zaitcev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Kiyoshi Ueda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Jun'ichi Nomura [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/block/ub.c | 10 +-
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
Index: 2.6.24-rc4/drivers/block/ub.c
===
--- 2.6.24-rc4.orig/drivers/block/ub.c
+++ 2.6.24-rc4/drivers/block/ub.c
@@ -808,16 +808,16 @@ static void ub_rw_cmd_done(struct ub_dev
static void ub_end_rq(struct request *rq, unsigned int scsi_status)
{
- int uptodate;
+ int error;
if (scsi_status == 0) {
- uptodate = 1;
+ error = 0;
} else {
- uptodate = 0;
+ error = -EIO;
rq-errors = scsi_status;
}
- end_that_request_first(rq, uptodate, rq-hard_nr_sectors);
- end_that_request_last(rq, uptodate);
+ if (__blk_end_request(rq, error, blk_rq_bytes(rq)))
+ BUG();
}
static int ub_rw_cmd_retry(struct ub_dev *sc, struct ub_lun *lun,
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH 12/30] blk_end_request: changing ub (take 4)
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:46:47 -0500 (EST), Kiyoshi Ueda [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
if (scsi_status == 0) {
- uptodate = 1;
+ error = 0;
} else {
- uptodate = 0;
+ error = -EIO;
rq-errors = scsi_status;
}
- end_that_request_first(rq, uptodate, rq-hard_nr_sectors);
- end_that_request_last(rq, uptodate);
+ if (__blk_end_request(rq, error, blk_rq_bytes(rq)))
+ BUG();
Acked-by: Pete Zaitcev [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I follow the discussion, actually, and wanted to ask someone to look
closer if it's appropriate to use __blk_end_request() here.
My understanding was, blk_end_request() is the same thing, only
takes the queue lock. But then, should I refactor ub so that it
calls __blk_end_request if request function ends with an error
and blk_end_request if the end-of-IO even is processed? If not,
and the above is sufficient, why have blk_end_request at all?
-- Pete
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
