[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111102072544.GA6967@infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 03:25:44 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] virtio: support unlocked queue kick
On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 01:49:36PM +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
> I thought it was still a WIP?
The whole series - yes. This patch (and the serial number rewrite): no
- these are pretty much rock solid.
> Since the problem is contention on the lock inside the block layer, the
> simplest solution is to have a separate lock to protect the virtqueue.
As long as we still use a ->request_fn based driver that is not going
to buy us anything, in fact it's going to make things worse.
->request_fn based drivers always have the queue lock held over the
invocation of ->request_fn anyway, and then need it around the call
to __blk_end_request_all. So you might minimally reduce contention
time, but skyrocket the number of lock acquisations when separating
them without changes to the block layer.
With the ->make_request_fn based driver vlkb->lock does't protect
anything but the virtuequeue anyway, but not having to take it
over the wakeup there is a) done easily and b) neatly fits the model.
--
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