Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:50:38 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |