[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZpVals5maZs4L3e0@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2024 07:21:26 -1000
From: "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>
To: Boy Wu (吳勃誼) <Boy.Wu@...iatek.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"boris@....io" <boris@....io>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
"cgroups@...r.kernel.org" <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
"axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Iverlin Wang (王苳霖) <Iverlin.Wang@...iatek.com>,
"josef@...icpanda.com" <josef@...icpanda.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"matthias.bgg@...il.com" <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
"angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com" <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] blk-cgroup: Replace u64_sync with blkg_stat_lock for
stats update
Hello,
On Mon, Jul 15, 2024 at 07:15:24AM +0000, Boy Wu (吳勃誼) wrote:
> I think I get your idea. You want to replace all the u64 sync for
> iostat. However, I have one question: why use blkg_stat_lock instead of
> adding a spin lock for each iostat like iostat.spinlock? We don't need
> to lock between updating different iostats, but only lock when updating
> the same iostat.
Oh yeah, that'd be even better.
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists