Hi,
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 09:18:59AM -0800, Robert Read wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 10:50:54PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> This is true, but it looks like the brw_kiovec allocation failure
> handling is broken already; it's calling __put_unused_buffer_head on
> bhs without waiting
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 04:22:22PM -0800, Robert Read wrote:
> Currently in brw_kiovec, iobuf->io_count is being incremented as each
> bh is submitted, and decremented in the bh->b_end_io(). This means
> io_count can go to zero before all the bhs have been submitted,
> especially during a large
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 04:22:22PM -0800, Robert Read wrote:
Currently in brw_kiovec, iobuf-io_count is being incremented as each
bh is submitted, and decremented in the bh-b_end_io(). This means
io_count can go to zero before all the bhs have been submitted,
especially during a large
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 28, 2001 at 09:18:59AM -0800, Robert Read wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 10:50:54PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
This is true, but it looks like the brw_kiovec allocation failure
handling is broken already; it's calling __put_unused_buffer_head on
bhs without waiting for
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 10:50:54PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
>
> It seems your patch breaks bh allocation failure handling. If
> get_unused_buffer_head() fails, iobuf->io_count never reaches 0, so
> processes waiting on kiobuf_wait_for_io() will block forever.
>
This is true, but it
On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 10:50:54PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
It seems your patch breaks bh allocation failure handling. If
get_unused_buffer_head() fails, iobuf-io_count never reaches 0, so
processes waiting on kiobuf_wait_for_io() will block forever.
This is true, but it looks like
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Robert Read wrote:
> Currently in brw_kiovec, iobuf->io_count is being incremented as each
> bh is submitted, and decremented in the bh->b_end_io(). This means
> io_count can go to zero before all the bhs have been submitted,
> especially during a large request. This
Currently in brw_kiovec, iobuf->io_count is being incremented as each
bh is submitted, and decremented in the bh->b_end_io(). This means
io_count can go to zero before all the bhs have been submitted,
especially during a large request. This causes the end_kio_request()
to be called before all of
Currently in brw_kiovec, iobuf-io_count is being incremented as each
bh is submitted, and decremented in the bh-b_end_io(). This means
io_count can go to zero before all the bhs have been submitted,
especially during a large request. This causes the end_kio_request()
to be called before all of
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Robert Read wrote:
Currently in brw_kiovec, iobuf-io_count is being incremented as each
bh is submitted, and decremented in the bh-b_end_io(). This means
io_count can go to zero before all the bhs have been submitted,
especially during a large request. This causes the
10 matches
Mail list logo