[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2f4dbb05-4874-6386-f9ee-06fdbaf482bf@kernel.dk>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2020 11:15:22 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
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 6/1/20 8:26 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 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.
That's probably true, and we can skip the 2nd one. I'll make the change.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists