[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090325104641.GB11935@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:46:41 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Philipp Reisner <philipp.reisner@...bit.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
gregkh@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] DRBD: activity_log
On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 11:27:22AM +0100, Philipp Reisner wrote:
> md_io_page gets allocated with GFP_KERNEL (no GFP_HIGHMEM either).
>
>
> [...]
> > > +
> > > + spin_lock_irq(&mdev->al_lock);
> > > + lc_changed(mdev->act_log, al_ext);
> > > + spin_unlock_irq(&mdev->al_lock);
> > > + wake_up(&mdev->al_wait);
> >
> > The wake_up outside the lock looks a little dangerous.
> >
>
> Please share you thoughts, why this looks a little dangerous ?
I haven't double checked the whole path, but unlocked wake up
is often a good recipe to potentially lose wake ups.
> [...]
> > > + mutex_lock(&mdev->md_io_mutex); /* protects md_io_buffer, al_tr_cycle,
> > > ... */
> >
> > Doing checksumming inside a lock looks nasty.
> >
>
> Well, that is a mutex, not a spinlock. We need to hold that lock here,
Yes it's independent. If it takes a lot of CPU time you'll likely have
a bottle neck. It's normally a bad idea to do anything CPU intensive
under a lock covering more than your current limited object.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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