On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 04:19:45PM -0800, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> > >
> > > On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Yes, and I believe that this is what's broken about the SCSI midlayer. The
>the
> > > > > io_request_lock cannot be completely released in a SCSI HBA because the
> > You can drop it with spin_unlock_irq and that is fine. I do that with no
> > problems in the I2O scsi driver for example
>
> I am (like, I think I *finally* got locking sorta right in my QLogic driver),
> but doesn't this still leave ints blocked for this CPU at least?
spin_unlock_irq
> >
> > On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> >
> > > > Yes, and I believe that this is what's broken about the SCSI midlayer. The the
> > > > io_request_lock cannot be completely released in a SCSI HBA because the flags
> > >
> > > You can drop it with spin_unlock_irq and that is fine. I do
>
> I am actually concerned about the following case:
>
> The add_request ON CPU_1 function calls
> spin_lock_irqsave(_request_lock,flags);
>
> Our I/O Function unlocks the spinlock and goes to sleep.
>
> Finally, the add_request function, NOW ON CPU_2 calls
>
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 04:03:58PM -0800, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > Yes, and I believe that this is what's broken about the SCSI midlayer. The the
> > > io_request_lock cannot be completely released in a SCSI HBA because the flags
> >
> > You can
>
>
>
> On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > Yes, and I believe that this is what's broken about the SCSI midlayer. The the
> > > io_request_lock cannot be completely released in a SCSI HBA because the flags
> >
> > You can drop it with spin_unlock_irq and that is fine. I do that with
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Yes, and I believe that this is what's broken about the SCSI midlayer. The the
> > io_request_lock cannot be completely released in a SCSI HBA because the flags
>
> You can drop it with spin_unlock_irq and that is fine. I do that with no
> problems in
> Yes, and I believe that this is what's broken about the SCSI midlayer. The the
> io_request_lock cannot be completely released in a SCSI HBA because the flags
You can drop it with spin_unlock_irq and that is fine. I do that with no problems
in the I2O scsi driver for example
-
To unsubscribe
> > spin_lock_irq(_request_lock);
> > we finish the request and return to the add_request function which calls
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(_request_lock,flags);
> > and restores the flags.
> >
> > Isn't it possible now that the flags which we restore are out of date now?
> > Is
> spin_lock_irq(_request_lock);
> we finish the request and return to the add_request function which calls
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(_request_lock,flags);
> and restores the flags.
>
> Isn't it possible now that the flags which we restore are out of date now?
> Is this idiom the
spin_lock_irq(io_request_lock);
we finish the request and return to the add_request function which calls
spin_unlock_irqrestore(io_request_lock,flags);
and restores the flags.
Isn't it possible now that the flags which we restore are out of date now?
Is this idiom the
spin_lock_irq(io_request_lock);
we finish the request and return to the add_request function which calls
spin_unlock_irqrestore(io_request_lock,flags);
and restores the flags.
Isn't it possible now that the flags which we restore are out of date now?
Is this idiom
Yes, and I believe that this is what's broken about the SCSI midlayer. The the
io_request_lock cannot be completely released in a SCSI HBA because the flags
You can drop it with spin_unlock_irq and that is fine. I do that with no problems
in the I2O scsi driver for example
-
To unsubscribe
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
Yes, and I believe that this is what's broken about the SCSI midlayer. The the
io_request_lock cannot be completely released in a SCSI HBA because the flags
You can drop it with spin_unlock_irq and that is fine. I do that with no
problems in the I2O
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
Yes, and I believe that this is what's broken about the SCSI midlayer. The the
io_request_lock cannot be completely released in a SCSI HBA because the flags
You can drop it with spin_unlock_irq and that is fine. I do that with no
problems
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 04:03:58PM -0800, Matthew Jacob wrote:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
Yes, and I believe that this is what's broken about the SCSI midlayer. The the
io_request_lock cannot be completely released in a SCSI HBA because the flags
You can drop it with
I am actually concerned about the following case:
The add_request ON CPU_1 function calls
spin_lock_irqsave(io_request_lock,flags);
Our I/O Function unlocks the spinlock and goes to sleep.
Finally, the add_request function, NOW ON CPU_2 calls
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
Yes, and I believe that this is what's broken about the SCSI midlayer. The the
io_request_lock cannot be completely released in a SCSI HBA because the flags
You can drop it with spin_unlock_irq and that is fine. I do that with no
You can drop it with spin_unlock_irq and that is fine. I do that with no
problems in the I2O scsi driver for example
I am (like, I think I *finally* got locking sorta right in my QLogic driver),
but doesn't this still leave ints blocked for this CPU at least?
spin_unlock_irq
On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 04:19:45PM -0800, Matthew Jacob wrote:
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote:
Yes, and I believe that this is what's broken about the SCSI midlayer. The
the
io_request_lock cannot be completely released in a SCSI HBA because the flags
You can
>
> > I looked at the implementation of the nbd which just calls
> >
> > spin_unlock_irq(_request_lock);
> > ... do network io ...
> > spin_lock_irq(_request_lock);
> >
> > This seems to work but it looks very dangerous to me (and ugly, too). Isn't there
>a better way to do this?
> I looked at the implementation of the nbd which just calls
>
> spin_unlock_irq(_request_lock);
> ... do network io ...
> spin_lock_irq(_request_lock);
>
> This seems to work but it looks very dangerous to me (and ugly, too). Isn't there a
>better way to do this?
It is
I looked at the implementation of the nbd which just calls
spin_unlock_irq(io_request_lock);
... do network io ...
spin_lock_irq(io_request_lock);
This seems to work but it looks very dangerous to me (and ugly, too). Isn't there a
better way to do this?
It is only
I looked at the implementation of the nbd which just calls
spin_unlock_irq(io_request_lock);
... do network io ...
spin_lock_irq(io_request_lock);
This seems to work but it looks very dangerous to me (and ugly, too). Isn't there
a better way to do this?
It is
24 matches
Mail list logo
