On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:49 PM, Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 05:21:40PM +0800, Yunkai Zhang wrote:
>> From: Yunkai Zhang <[email protected]>
>>
>> Actually, there are two race problems when we call do_cluster_request()
>> in IO threads:
>> 1) race on sys->pending_list which would also be updated in
>> sd_notify_handler().
>> 2) calling sys->notify() in IO threads other than main thread is also
>> mistake.
>>
>> So I move do_cluster_request() into cluster_op_done().
>
> What the reason to bother with a workqueue if you could call it
> directly?
Maybe we can call it directly, but I worry about it will be executed
in front of the works in request_queue(if there are any works in it),
as a result, the EVENT ORDER of IO request might be broken.
>
>> @@ -174,6 +174,7 @@ static void local_op_done(struct work *work)
>> static void cluster_op_done(struct work *work)
>> {
>> /* request is forwarded to cpg group */
>> + do_cluster_request(work);
>> }
>
> Also is there any good reason to have the wrapper here? The comment
> doesn't seem very helpful anymore either.
>
I just want to use this function's name so that it can keep consistent
with work.done, maybe I can assign do_cluster_request to work.done
directly?
--
Yunkai Zhang
Work at Taobao
--
sheepdog mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/sheepdog
