[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120208172313.GD19392@google.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:23:13 -0800
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.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()
On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 08:56:11AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 08:49:20AM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > I'm still a bit lost on where the regression is coming from and
> > *suspecting* that queue_lock contention is making the reverse locking
> > behave much worse than expected, so I mostly wanted to take that out
> > and see what happens.
>
> IOW, we can achieve about the same thing by adding another lock in
> request_queue. The goal is using an inner lock for ioc clearing so
> that queue_lock doesn't have to be grabbed inside ioc lock.
Urgh....... forget about the above message. My head is still booting.
We can't do this w/ per-queue lock as we don't have a way to traverse
the associated queues w/o holding the lock and we need read locking on
ioc exit path as we may recurse through elevator icq exit (it's not
about concurrency). /me goes to brew coffee.
--
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