lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: oops with dual xeon 2.8ghz 4gb ram +smp, software raid, lvm, and xfs
Neil Brown <neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
>
> Would the following (untested-but-seems-to-compile -
> explanation-of-concept) patch be at all reasonable to avoid stack
> depth problems with stacked block devices, or is adding stuff to
> task_struct frowned upon?

It's always a tradeoff - we've put things in task_struct before to get
around sticky situations. Certainly, removing potentially unbounded stack
utilisation is a worthwhile thing to do.

The patch bends my brain a bit. Shouldn't the queueing happen in
submit_bio()?

Is bi_next free in there? If anyone tries to do synchronous I/O things
will get stuck.

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:08    [W:0.555 / U:1.076 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site