linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the block tree
in [Kernel]
|
Prev: [PATCH 0/2] Common struct clk implementation, v5
Next: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the net tree
From: Stephen Rothwell on 21 Jun 2010 02:20 Hi all, Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in fs/fs-writeback.c between commits 7f0e7bed936a0c422641a046551829a01341dd80 ("writeback: fix writeback completion notifications") and 3c4d716538f3eefb1c1f10961a047a6456a2b590 ("writeback: queue work on stack in writeback_inodes_sb") from the block tree and commit b97181f24212f4c29197890ce1b2b9100bcc184d ("fs: remove all rcu head initializations, except on_stack initializations") from the tip tree. I fixed it up (I hope - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr(a)canb.auug.org.au diff --cc fs/fs-writeback.c index 5455009,af92100..0000000 --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c @@@ -63,16 -63,45 +63,37 @@@ struct bdi_work }; enum { - WS_USED_B = 0, - WS_ONSTACK_B, + WS_INPROGRESS = 0, + WS_ONSTACK, }; - static inline void bdi_work_init(struct bdi_work *work, - struct wb_writeback_args *args) -#define WS_USED (1 << WS_USED_B) -#define WS_ONSTACK (1 << WS_ONSTACK_B) - -static inline bool bdi_work_on_stack(struct bdi_work *work) -{ - return test_bit(WS_ONSTACK_B, &work->state); -} - + static inline void __bdi_work_init(struct bdi_work *work, + struct wb_writeback_args *args, + int on_stack) { - INIT_RCU_HEAD(&work->rcu_head); work->args = *args; - work->state = WS_USED; + __set_bit(WS_INPROGRESS, &work->state); + if (on_stack) { - work->state |= WS_ONSTACK; ++ __set_bit(WS_ONSTACK, &work->state); + init_rcu_head_on_stack(&work->rcu_head); + } + } + + static inline void bdi_work_init(struct bdi_work *work, + struct wb_writeback_args *args) + { + __bdi_work_init(work, args, false); + } + + static inline void bdi_work_init_on_stack(struct bdi_work *work, + struct wb_writeback_args *args) + { + __bdi_work_init(work, args, true); + } + + static inline void bdi_destroy_work_on_stack(struct bdi_work *work) + { + destroy_rcu_head_on_stack(&work->rcu_head); } /** @@@ -182,19 -239,26 +203,19 @@@ static void bdi_alloc_queue_work(struc * @sb: write inodes from this super_block * * Description: - * This does WB_SYNC_ALL data integrity writeback and waits for the - * IO to complete. Callers must hold the sb s_umount semaphore for + * This function initiates writeback and waits for the operation to + * complete. Callers must hold the sb s_umount semaphore for * reading, to avoid having the super disappear before we are done. */ -static void bdi_sync_writeback(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, - struct super_block *sb) +static void bdi_queue_work_onstack(struct wb_writeback_args *args) { - struct wb_writeback_args args = { - .sb = sb, - .sync_mode = WB_SYNC_ALL, - .nr_pages = LONG_MAX, - .range_cyclic = 0, - }; struct bdi_work work; - bdi_work_init(&work, args); - __set_bit(WS_ONSTACK, &work.state); - bdi_work_init_on_stack(&work, &args); ++ bdi_work_init_on_stack(&work, args); - bdi_queue_work(bdi, &work); - bdi_wait_on_work_clear(&work); + bdi_queue_work(args->sb->s_bdi, &work); + bdi_wait_on_work_done(&work); + bdi_destroy_work_on_stack(&work); } /** -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Paul E. McKenney on 21 Jun 2010 13:20 On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 04:16:23PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi all, > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in > fs/fs-writeback.c between commits 7f0e7bed936a0c422641a046551829a01341dd80 > ("writeback: fix writeback completion notifications") and > 3c4d716538f3eefb1c1f10961a047a6456a2b590 ("writeback: queue work on stack > in writeback_inodes_sb") from the block tree and commit > b97181f24212f4c29197890ce1b2b9100bcc184d ("fs: remove all rcu head > initializations, except on_stack initializations") from the tip tree. > > I fixed it up (I hope - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. I took a look, and all of the changes from "fs: remove all rcu head initializations, except on_stack initializations" are reflected in -next. Thanx, Paul > -- > Cheers, > Stephen Rothwell sfr(a)canb.auug.org.au > > diff --cc fs/fs-writeback.c > index 5455009,af92100..0000000 > --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c > +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c > @@@ -63,16 -63,45 +63,37 @@@ struct bdi_work > }; > > enum { > - WS_USED_B = 0, > - WS_ONSTACK_B, > + WS_INPROGRESS = 0, > + WS_ONSTACK, > }; > > - static inline void bdi_work_init(struct bdi_work *work, > - struct wb_writeback_args *args) > -#define WS_USED (1 << WS_USED_B) > -#define WS_ONSTACK (1 << WS_ONSTACK_B) > - > -static inline bool bdi_work_on_stack(struct bdi_work *work) > -{ > - return test_bit(WS_ONSTACK_B, &work->state); > -} > - > + static inline void __bdi_work_init(struct bdi_work *work, > + struct wb_writeback_args *args, > + int on_stack) > { > - INIT_RCU_HEAD(&work->rcu_head); > work->args = *args; > - work->state = WS_USED; > + __set_bit(WS_INPROGRESS, &work->state); > + if (on_stack) { > - work->state |= WS_ONSTACK; > ++ __set_bit(WS_ONSTACK, &work->state); > + init_rcu_head_on_stack(&work->rcu_head); > + } > + } > + > + static inline void bdi_work_init(struct bdi_work *work, > + struct wb_writeback_args *args) > + { > + __bdi_work_init(work, args, false); > + } > + > + static inline void bdi_work_init_on_stack(struct bdi_work *work, > + struct wb_writeback_args *args) > + { > + __bdi_work_init(work, args, true); > + } > + > + static inline void bdi_destroy_work_on_stack(struct bdi_work *work) > + { > + destroy_rcu_head_on_stack(&work->rcu_head); > } > > /** > @@@ -182,19 -239,26 +203,19 @@@ static void bdi_alloc_queue_work(struc > * @sb: write inodes from this super_block > * > * Description: > - * This does WB_SYNC_ALL data integrity writeback and waits for the > - * IO to complete. Callers must hold the sb s_umount semaphore for > + * This function initiates writeback and waits for the operation to > + * complete. Callers must hold the sb s_umount semaphore for > * reading, to avoid having the super disappear before we are done. > */ > -static void bdi_sync_writeback(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, > - struct super_block *sb) > +static void bdi_queue_work_onstack(struct wb_writeback_args *args) > { > - struct wb_writeback_args args = { > - .sb = sb, > - .sync_mode = WB_SYNC_ALL, > - .nr_pages = LONG_MAX, > - .range_cyclic = 0, > - }; > struct bdi_work work; > > - bdi_work_init(&work, args); > - __set_bit(WS_ONSTACK, &work.state); > - bdi_work_init_on_stack(&work, &args); > ++ bdi_work_init_on_stack(&work, args); > > - bdi_queue_work(bdi, &work); > - bdi_wait_on_work_clear(&work); > + bdi_queue_work(args->sb->s_bdi, &work); > + bdi_wait_on_work_done(&work); > + bdi_destroy_work_on_stack(&work); > } > > /** > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Stephen Rothwell on 21 Jun 2010 19:50 Hi Paul, On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:13:00 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > I took a look, and all of the changes from "fs: remove all rcu head > initializations, except on_stack initializations" are reflected in -next. Thanks for checking. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr(a)canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
From: Stephen Rothwell on 21 Jun 2010 20:10 Hi Paul, On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:40:33 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr(a)canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:13:00 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck(a)linux.vnet..ibm.com> wrote: > > > > I took a look, and all of the changes from "fs: remove all rcu head > > initializations, except on_stack initializations" are reflected in -next. > > Thanks for checking. Is there some way that this commit can be merged via the block tree? Or does later work in your tree depend on it? There is considerable and ongoing work in the block tree on the same areas as your commit changes. Even today, this conflict is going to be much worse. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr(a)canb.auug.org.au http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
From: Paul E. McKenney on 21 Jun 2010 20:50
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:04:23AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:40:33 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <sfr(a)canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 10:13:00 -0700 "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > I took a look, and all of the changes from "fs: remove all rcu head > > > initializations, except on_stack initializations" are reflected in -next. > > > > Thanks for checking. > > Is there some way that this commit can be merged via the block tree? Or > does later work in your tree depend on it? There is considerable and > ongoing work in the block tree on the same areas as your commit changes. > Even today, this conflict is going to be much worse. I have no problem with this patch being applied via the block tree, as long as it doesn't take too many minor releases for it to hit mainline. ;-) How would everyone like to proceed? Thanx, Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |