[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120207164735.GH21292@google.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 08:47:35 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
Shaohua Li <vivek.goyal2008@...il.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Knut Petersen <Knut_Petersen@...nline.de>, mroos@...ux.ee
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: strip out locking optimization in
put_io_context()
Hello,
On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 08:33:15AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Yeah, please just get rid of the crazy code. Maybe *that* fixes the
> regression too, who knows?
>
> For all we know, the "fast case" is what causes extra locking only to
> then fail and not even be a fast-path.
Yeah, I was about to ask Shaohua to test the version w/o optimization.
With heavily loaded request_queue, trylock failure could be frequent,
which I wasn't testing.
Shaohua, can you please test the version w/o optimization? Also, can
you please give a bit more details on the setup? Are there multiple
swap devices? Is it SSD or rotating disk?
> I think our default action should always be to simplify and clean up
> code, unless you have seriously hard numbers to show that the code
> complexity is worth it.
Sure, it was originally all in put_io_context() and while moving
things to wq, it got progressively complex and I lost sense of
complexity from staring at it too long.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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