[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200601142649.GJ19604@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 07:26:49 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/12] mm: add support for async page locking
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 01:51:15PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> +static int __wait_on_page_locked_async(struct page *page,
> + struct wait_page_queue *wait, bool set)
> +{
> + struct wait_queue_head *q = page_waitqueue(page);
> + int ret = 0;
> +
> + wait->page = page;
> + wait->bit_nr = PG_locked;
> +
> + spin_lock_irq(&q->lock);
> + if (set)
> + ret = !trylock_page(page);
> + else
> + ret = PageLocked(page);
> + if (ret) {
> + __add_wait_queue_entry_tail(q, &wait->wait);
> + SetPageWaiters(page);
> + if (set)
> + ret = !trylock_page(page);
> + else
> + ret = PageLocked(page);
Between the callers and this function, we actually look at PG_lock three
times; once in the caller, then after taking the spinlock, then after
adding ourselves to the waitqueue. I understand the first and third, but
is it really worth doing the second test? It feels unlikely to succeed
and only saves us setting PageWaiters.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists