[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e73dc8e8-09a3-ecc8-3199-ac87e8b9ee55@linux.dev>
Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2022 19:36:26 +0800
From: Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@...ux.dev>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>, song@...nel.org,
logang@...tatee.com, pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de
Cc: linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
yukuai3@...wei.com, yi.zhang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] md/raid10: convert resync_lock to use seqlock
On 9/16/22 7:34 PM, Yu Kuai wrote:
> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>
> Currently, wait_barrier() will hold 'resync_lock' to read 'conf->barrier',
> and io can't be dispatched until 'barrier' is dropped.
>
> Since holding the 'barrier' is not common, convert 'resync_lock' to use
> seqlock so that holding lock can be avoided in fast path.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
> ---
> drivers/md/raid10.c | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> drivers/md/raid10.h | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid10.c b/drivers/md/raid10.c
> index 9a28abd19709..2daa7d57034c 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid10.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid10.c
> @@ -79,6 +79,21 @@ static void end_reshape(struct r10conf *conf);
>
> #include "raid1-10.c"
>
> +#define NULL_CMD
> +#define cmd_before(conf, cmd) \
> + do { \
> + write_sequnlock_irq(&(conf)->resync_lock); \
> + cmd; \
> + } while (0)
> +#define cmd_after(conf) write_seqlock_irq(&(conf)->resync_lock)
The two is not paired well given only cmd_before needs the 'cmd'.
> +
> +#define wait_event_barrier_cmd(conf, cond, cmd) \
> + wait_event_cmd((conf)->wait_barrier, cond, cmd_before(conf, cmd), \
> + cmd_after(conf))
> +
> +#define wait_event_barrier(conf, cond) \
> + wait_event_barrier_cmd(conf, cond, NULL_CMD)
What is the issue without define NULL_CMD?
Thanks,
Guoqing
Powered by blists - more mailing lists