[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171003192412.GC5362@ming.t460p>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 03:24:13 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
Cc: "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
"jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"axboe@...com" <axboe@...com>,
"martin.petersen@...cle.com" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"jthumshirn@...e.de" <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
"martin@...htvoll.de" <martin@...htvoll.de>,
"oleksandr@...alenko.name" <oleksandr@...alenko.name>,
"hare@...e.com" <hare@...e.com>, "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
"cavery@...hat.com" <cavery@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 5/8] percpu-refcount: introduce
__percpu_ref_tryget_live
On Tue, Oct 03, 2017 at 06:40:24PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 22:04 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Block layer need to call this function after holding
> > rcu lock in a real hot path, so introduce this helper.
>
> Since it is allowed to nest rcu_read_lock_sched() calls I don't think
> that this patch is necessary.
Yeah, I know that, with this patch, we can avoid the nest RCU lock.
As I mentioned, it is a real hot path, so maybe better to not
introduce the extra RCU read lock/unlock.
If you guys doesn't care the little cost, I can remove that.
--
Ming
Powered by blists - more mailing lists