From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kent Overstreet Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] aio: Rewrite refcounting Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 15:21:53 -0700 Message-ID: <20121009222153.GG29494@google.com> References: <1349764760-21093-1-git-send-email-koverstreet@google.com> <1349764760-21093-3-git-send-email-koverstreet@google.com> <20121009182755.GN26187@lenny.home.zabbo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121009182755.GN26187-fypN+1c5dIyjpB87vu3CluTW4wlIGRCZ@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-bcache-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Zach Brown Cc: linux-bcache-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, dm-devel-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, tytso-3s7WtUTddSA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 11:27:55AM -0700, Zach Brown wrote: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 11:39:18PM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote: > > The refcounting before wasn't very clear; there are two refcounts in > > struct kioctx, with an unclear relationship between them (or between > > them and ctx->dead). > > > > Now, reqs_active holds a refcount on users (when reqs_active is > > nonzero), and the initial refcount is taken on reqs_active - when > > ctx->dead goes to 1, we drop that initial refcount. > > I agree that it's a mess, but let's rethink this work on top of the > series I'm sending out that gets rid of the retry and cancel code. It > makes the code a lot easier to follow. (And Jens also has some patches > to take fewer locks in the submission path, we'll want to take them into > account too.) Alright... send it out then. Also, do you know which branch Jens has his patches in?