[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5375848.bxLv0aDzDv@wuerfel>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:28:57 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@...aro.org>
Cc: Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
Hal Rosenstock <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/8] IB/hns: Replace counting semaphore event_sem with wait_event
On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 5:31:57 PM CEST Binoy Jayan wrote:
> static int __hns_roce_cmd_mbox_wait(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev, u64 in_param,
> u64 out_param, unsigned long in_modifier,
> @@ -198,11 +218,12 @@ static int __hns_roce_cmd_mbox_wait(struct hns_roce_dev *hr_dev, u64 in_param,
> struct hns_roce_cmdq *cmd = &hr_dev->cmd;
> struct device *dev = &hr_dev->pdev->dev;
> struct hns_roce_cmd_context *context;
> - int ret = 0;
> + int orig_free_head, ret = 0;
> +
> + wait_event(cmd->wq, (orig_free_head = atomic_free_node(cmd, -1)) != -1);
>
> spin_lock(&cmd->context_lock);
> - WARN_ON(cmd->free_head < 0);
> - context = &cmd->context[cmd->free_head];
> + context = &cmd->context[orig_free_head];
> context->token += cmd->token_mask + 1;
> cmd->free_head = context->next;
> spin_unlock(&cmd->context_lock);
>
You get the lock in atomic_free_node() and then again right after that.
Why not combine the two and only take the lock inside of that
function that returns a context?
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists