Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 28 May 2003 12:18:26 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: 2.4.20: Proccess stuck in __lock_page ... |
| |
On Wed, May 28 2003, Matthias Mueller wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 12:51:56AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > It'd be interesting if any of these changes make a difference. > > > > > > drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c | 7 > > fs/buffer.c | 3030 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 3033 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff -puN drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c~a drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c > > --- 24/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c~a 2003-05-28 00:48:09.000000000 -0700 > > +++ 24-akpm/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c 2003-05-28 00:50:02.000000000 -0700 > > @@ -590,10 +590,10 @@ static struct request *__get_request_wai > > register struct request *rq; > > DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, current); > > > > - generic_unplug_device(q); > > - add_wait_queue_exclusive(&q->wait_for_requests[rw], &wait); > > + add_wait_queue(&q->wait_for_requests[rw], &wait); > > do { > > set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); > > + generic_unplug_device(q); > > if (q->rq[rw].count == 0) > > schedule(); > > spin_lock_irq(&io_request_lock); > > @@ -829,8 +829,7 @@ void blkdev_release_request(struct reque > > */ > > if (q) { > > list_add(&req->queue, &q->rq[rw].free); > > - if (++q->rq[rw].count >= q->batch_requests && > > - waitqueue_active(&q->wait_for_requests[rw])) > > + if (++q->rq[rw].count >= q->batch_requests) > > wake_up(&q->wait_for_requests[rw]); > > } > > } > > > > Works fine on my notebook. Good throughput and no mouse hangs anymore.
Could you possibly try just the last hunk of the patch, then? Ie just remove the waitqueue_active(&q->wait_for_requests[rw]) check, leave the rest as-is.
-- Jens Axboe
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |