[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1582046428.16681.7.camel@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 09:20:28 -0800
From: James Bottomley <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Merlijn Wajer <merlijn@...hive.org>
Cc: merlijn@...zup.org, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] scsi: sr: get rid of sr global mutex
On Tue, 2020-02-18 at 09:12 -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 03:39:17PM +0100, Merlijn Wajer wrote:
> > When replacing the Big Kernel Lock in commit
> > 2a48fc0ab24241755dc93bfd4f01d68efab47f5a ("block: autoconvert
> > trivial BKL users to private mutex"), the lock was replaced with a
> > sr-wide lock.
> >
> > This causes very poor performance when using multiple sr devices,
> > as the sr driver was not able to execute more than one command to
> > one drive at any given time, even when there were many CD drives
> > available.
> >
> > Replace the global mutex with per-sr-device mutex.
>
> Do we actually need the lock at all? What is protected by it?
We do at least for cdrom_open. It modifies the cdi structure with no
other protection and concurrent modification would at least screw up
the use counter which is not atomic. Same reasoning for cdrom_release.
I think the ioctls don't need the mutex (not looked deeply enough) and
certainly the probe only requires it for the idr allocation which has
its own lock, so I don't believe the mutex additions are needed there.
James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists