[dm-devel] [PATCH 0/8] dm: request-based dm-multipath

[Kiyoshi Ueda]

Hi Hannes,

On 2009/03/11 21:28 +0900, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> Hi Kiyoshi,
> 
> Kiyoshi Ueda wrote:
>> Hi Hannes,
>>
> [ .. ]
>>
>> Suspend was broken.
>> dm_suspend() recognized that suspend completed while some requests
>> were still in flight.  So we could swap/free the in-use table while
>> there was in_flight request.
>> The patch is like the attached one, although it is not finalized and
>> I'm testing now.
>> I'll post an updated patch-set including the attached patch
>> this week or next week.
>>
>>
>> ---
>>  drivers/md/dm.c |  236
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>>  1 file changed, 144 insertions(+), 92 deletions(-)
>>
>> Index: 2.6.29-rc2/drivers/md/dm.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- 2.6.29-rc2.orig/drivers/md/dm.c
>> +++ 2.6.29-rc2/drivers/md/dm.c
>> @@ -701,11 +701,17 @@ static void free_bio_clone(struct reques
>>      }
>>  }
>>  
>> -static void dec_rq_pending(struct dm_rq_target_io *tio)
>> +/*
>> + * XXX: Not taking queue lock for efficiency.
>> + *      For correctness, waiters will check that again with queue
>> lock held.
>> + *      No false negative because this function will be called everytime
>> + *      in_flight is decremented.
>> + */
>> +static void rq_completed(struct mapped_device *md)
>>  {
>> -    if (!atomic_dec_return(&tio->md->pending))
>> +    if (!md->queue->in_flight)
>>          /* nudge anyone waiting on suspend queue */
>> -        wake_up(&tio->md->wait);
>> +        wake_up(&md->wait);
>>  }
>>  
> Hmm. Don't think that's a good idea. Either take the spinlock here or
> in_flight should be atomic.

Thank you for the comment.
OK, I'll change to take queue_lock here for maintenancability now,
although the queue_lock is not needed logically.
Then, I'll have another patch to drop the queue_lock for efficiency
in the future.

Thanks,
Kiyoshi Ueda