[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110411225930.GB32310@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:59:30 -0400
From: "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
Cc: "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
dm-devel@...hat.com, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] block: remove per-queue plugging
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 07:14:28AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> My understanding of that was that the calling requirement of
> __elv_add_request is that the queue spinlock is held and that interrupts are
> disabled.
> So rather than possible enabling and disabling interrupts several times as
> different queue are handled, the code just disabled interrupts once, and
> then just take the spinlock once for each different queue.
>
> The whole point of the change to plugging was to take locks less often.
> Disabling interrupts less often is presumably an analogous goal.
>
> Though I agree that a comment would help.
>
> q = NULL;
> + /* Disable interrupts just once rather than using spin_lock_irq/sin_unlock_irq
> * variants
> */
> local_irq_save(flags);
>
>
> assuming my analysis is correct.
Your explanation does make sense to be now that you explain it. I
didn't even thing of that variant before.
--
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