Re: oops with dual xeon 2.8ghz 4gb ram +smp, software raid, lvm,and xfs

[Andrew Morton]

Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/