[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200801260021.50786.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:21:50 -0800
From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To: romlinux@...il.com
Cc: greg@...ah.com, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Moving spinlock to struct usb_hcd
On Friday 25 January 2008, Romit Dasgupta wrote:
> This should help
> reduce contention to usb during high load where i/o is happening to
> multiple hcds.
Looking at how this lock is used, contention doesn't look likely
to be an issue. It's never held for long ...
> @@ -1106,9 +1103,9 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(usb_hcd_check_unlink_urb);
> void usb_hcd_unlink_urb_from_ep(struct usb_hcd *hcd, struct urb *urb)
> {
> /* clear all state linking urb to this dev (and hcd) */
> - spin_lock(&hcd_urb_list_lock);
> + spin_lock(&hcd->hcd_urb_list_lock);
> list_del_init(&urb->urb_list);
> - spin_unlock(&hcd_urb_list_lock);
> + spin_unlock(&hcd->hcd_urb_list_lock);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(usb_hcd_unlink_urb_from_ep);
>
Do you have any proof that contention is an actual problem?
Because otherwise I see no benefit to such a change.
- Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists