[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YpeaCSvFo1Mqvsgv@iweiny-desk3>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2022 09:55:37 -0700
From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>,
Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Ben Widawsky <ben@...dawsk.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
a.manzanares@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 3/9] PCI: Create PCI library functions in support of
DOE mailboxes.
On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 06:59:09AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2022, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > Thinking about it I don't see a benefit to a rwlock. We don't have multiple
> > readers.
>
> ... but you have concurrent workqueues reading the value of cur_task.
No, concurrent workqueues are reading the value of different DOE mailboxes'
cur_task. Each mailbox has it's own lock for its current task.
This is a multiple writers to a single reader pattern. The lock serializes
driver requests (possibly from different threads) into the single mailbox as
well as signaling when the cur_task is done; retire_cur_task().
At the same time multiple mailboxes can be running parallel.
I don't think taking the lock in doe_statemachine_work() is technically
necessary. But I left it there for completeness because if the queue depth is
increased like it was in Jonathans original code the locking around cur_task
will need to be adjusted in this area.
Ira
>
> Thanks,
> Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists