On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:40:47 -0700 Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:22:46 -0700 Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >>>>>> +static int igbvf_set_ringparam(struct net_device *netdev, > >>>>>> + struct ethtool_ringparam *ring) > >>>>>> +{ > >>>>>> + struct igbvf_adapter *adapter = netdev_priv(netdev); > >>>>>> + struct igbvf_ring *tx_ring, *tx_old; > >>>>>> + struct igbvf_ring *rx_ring, *rx_old; > >>>>>> + int err; > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> + if ((ring->rx_mini_pending) || (ring->rx_jumbo_pending)) > >>>>>> + return -EINVAL; > >>>>>> + > >>>>>> + while (test_and_set_bit(__IGBVF_RESETTING, &adapter->state)) > >>>>>> + msleep(1); > >>>>> No timeout needed here? Interrupts might not be working, for example.. > >>>> This bit isn't set in interrupt context. This is always used out of > >>>> interrupt context and is just to prevent multiple setting changes at the > >>>> same time. > >>> Oh. Can't use plain old mutex_lock()? > >> We have one or two spots that actually check to see if the bit is set > >> and just report a warning instead of actually waiting on the bit to clear. > > > > mutex_is_locked()? > > I suppose that would work, but I still would prefer to keep this bit of > code as it is. My main motivation is just to use what was already > proven, and the fact is the e1000, e1000e, igb, and several other > drivers all use this same approach and it works. OK, that's a reason. > I don't think we need the extra overhead of the mutex lock since most of > the calls that end up setting the __IGBVF_RESETTING bit will already be > wrapped within rtnl_lock/unlock calls. As far as I can tell it looks > like the only two threads that would ever be competing for the lock > would be the igbvf_reinit_locked and whatever ethtool or ifconfig > requests that decide to make changes to the configuration of the netdevice. You may well find that mutex_lock is more efficient than setting a timer and waking up once per millisecond. Certainly much lower latency on some setups given clock granularities of as much as 10 milliseconds. But it sounds like that's all a separate standalone exercise. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html