30 Jan, 2009
1 commit
-
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o"
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe
29 Dec, 2008
6 commits
-
Empty barrier on write-through (or no cache) w/ ordered tag has no
command to execute and without any command to execute ordered tag is
never issued to the device and the ordering is never achieved. Force
draining for such cases.Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe -
Empty barrier required special handling in __elv_next_request() to
complete it without letting the low level driver see it.With previous changes, barrier code is now flexible enough to skip the
BAR step using the same barrier sequence selection mechanism. Drop
the special handling and mask off q->ordered from start_ordered().Remove blk_empty_barrier() test which now has no user.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe -
Barrier completion had the following assumptions.
* start_ordered() couldn't finish the whole sequence properly. If all
actions are to be skipped, q->ordseq is set correctly but the actual
completion was never triggered thus hanging the barrier request.* Drain completion in elv_complete_request() assumed that there's
always at least one request in the queue when drain completes.Both assumptions are true but these assumptions need to be removed to
improve empty barrier implementation. This patch makes the following
changes.* Make start_ordered() use blk_ordered_complete_seq() to mark skipped
steps complete and notify __elv_next_request() that it should fetch
the next request if the whole barrier has completed inside
start_ordered().* Make drain completion path in elv_complete_request() check whether
the queue is empty. Empty queue also indicates drain completion.* While at it, convert 0/1 return from blk_do_ordered() to false/true.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe -
In all barrier sequences, the barrier write itself was always assumed
to be issued and thus didn't have corresponding control flag. This
patch adds QUEUE_ORDERED_DO_BAR and unify action mask handling in
start_ordered() such that any barrier action can be skipped.This patch doesn't introduce any visible behavior changes.
Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe -
* Because barrier mode can be changed dynamically, whether barrier is
supported or not can be determined only when actually issuing the
barrier and there is no point in checking it earlier. Drop barrier
support check in generic_make_request() and __make_request(), and
update comment around the support check in blk_do_ordered().* There is no reason to check discard support in both
generic_make_request() and __make_request(). Drop the check in
__make_request(). While at it, move error action block to the end
of the function and add unlikely() to q existence test.* Barrier request, be it empty or not, is never passed to low level
driver and thus it's meaningless to try to copy back req->sector to
bio->bi_sector on error. In addition, the notion of failed sector
doesn't make any sense for empty barrier to begin with. Drop the
code block from __end_that_request_first().Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe -
Separate out ordering type (drain,) and action masks (preflush,
postflush, fua) from visible ordering mode selectors
(QUEUE_ORDERED_*). Ordering types are now named QUEUE_ORDERED_BY_*
while action masks are named QUEUE_ORDERED_DO_*.This change is necessary to add QUEUE_ORDERED_DO_BAR and make it
optional to improve empty barrier implementation.Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe
03 Dec, 2008
1 commit
-
blkdev_dequeue_request() and elv_dequeue_request() are equivalent and
both start the timeout timer. Barrier code dequeues the original
barrier request but doesn't passes the request itself to lower level
driver, only broken down proxy requests; however, as the original
barrier code goes through the same dequeue path and timeout timer is
started on it. If barrier sequence takes long enough, this timer
expires but the low level driver has no idea about this request and
oops follows.Timeout timer shouldn't have been started on the original barrier
request as it never goes through actual IO. This patch unexports
elv_dequeue_request(), which has no external user anyway, and makes it
operate on elevator proper w/o adding the timer and make
blkdev_dequeue_request() call elv_dequeue_request() and add timer.
Internal users which don't pass the request to driver - barrier code
and end_that_request_last() - are converted to use
elv_dequeue_request().Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo
Cc: Mike Anderson
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe
09 Oct, 2008
4 commits
-
Two mods to blkdev_issue_discard(), thinking ahead to its use on swap:
1. Add gfp_mask argument, so swap allocation can use it where GFP_KERNEL
might deadlock but GFP_NOIO is safe.2. Enlarge nr_sects argument from unsigned to sector_t: unsigned long is
enough to cover a whole swap area, but sector_t suits any partition.Change sb_issue_discard()'s nr_blocks to sector_t too; but no need seen
for a gfp_mask there, just pass GFP_KERNEL down to blkdev_issue_discard().Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe -
But blkdev_issue_discard() still emits requests which are interpreted as
soft barriers, because naïve callers might otherwise issue subsequent
writes to those same sectors, which might cross on the queue (if they're
reallocated quickly enough).Callers still _can_ issue non-barrier discard requests, but they have to
take care of queue ordering for themselves.Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe -
Barriers should be submitted with the WRITE flag set.
Signed-off-by: OGAWA Hirofumi
Signed-off-by: David Woodhouse
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe -
Some block devices benefit from a hint that they can forget the contents
of certain sectors. Add basic support for this to the block core, along
with a 'blkdev_issue_discard()' helper function which issues such
requests.The caller doesn't get to provide an end_io functio, since
blkdev_issue_discard() will automatically split the request up into
multiple bios if appropriate. Neither does the function wait for
completion -- it's expected that callers won't care about when, or even
_if_, the request completes. It's only a hint to the device anyway. By
definition, the file system doesn't _care_ about these sectors any more.[With feedback from OGAWA Hirofumi and
Jens Axboe
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe
01 May, 2008
1 commit
-
__FUNCTION__ is gcc specific, use __func__
Signed-off-by: Harvey Harrison
Cc: Jens Axboe
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds
29 Apr, 2008
3 commits
-
This rename rq_init() blk_rq_init() and export it. Any path that hands
the request to the block layer needs to call it to initialize the
request.This is a preparation for large command support, which needs to
initialize the request in a proper way (that is, just doing a memset()
will not work).Signed-off-by: FUJITA Tomonori
Cc: Jens Axboe
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe -
This patch fixes the following build error with UML and gcc 4.3:
...
CC block/blk-barrier.o
/home/bunk/linux/kernel-2.6/git/linux-2.6/block/blk-barrier.c: In function ‘blk_do_ordered’:
/home/bunk/linux/kernel-2.6/git/linux-2.6/block/blk-barrier.c:57: sorry, unimplemented: inlining failed in call to ‘blk_ordered_cur_seq’: function body not available
/home/bunk/linux/kernel-2.6/git/linux-2.6/block/blk-barrier.c:252: sorry, unimplemented: called from here
/home/bunk/linux/kernel-2.6/git/linux-2.6/block/blk-barrier.c:57: sorry, unimplemented: inlining failed in call to ‘blk_ordered_cur_seq’: function body not available
/home/bunk/linux/kernel-2.6/git/linux-2.6/block/blk-barrier.c:253: sorry, unimplemented: called from here
make[2]: *** [block/blk-barrier.o] Error 1Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe -
This requires moving rq_init() from get_request() to blk_alloc_request().
The upside is that we can now require an rq_init() from any path that
wishes to hand the request to the block layer.rq_init() will be exported for the code that uses struct request
without blk_get_request.This is a preparation for large command support, which needs to
initialize struct request in a proper way (that is, just doing a
memset() will not work).Signed-off-by: FUJITA Tomonori
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe
04 Mar, 2008
1 commit
-
This is important to eg dm, that tries to decide whether to stop using
barriers or not.Tested as working by Anders Henke
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe
01 Feb, 2008
1 commit
-
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe
30 Jan, 2008
1 commit
-
Adds files for barrier handling, rq execution, io context handling,
mapping data to requests, and queue settings.Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe