On 8/24/18 11:14 AM, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
>> + if (lock) {
>> + spin_unlock_irq(lock);
>> + io_schedule();
>> + spin_lock_irq(lock);
>> + } else
>> + io_schedule();
>
> Nitpick but, shouldn't this look like:
>
> + if (lock) {
> + spin_unlock_irq(lock);
> + io_schedule();
> + spin_lock_irq(lock);
> + } else {
> + io_schedule();
> + }
Depends on who you ask... I prefer the former.
> And another random though, it would be good to have some sort of
> tracing of this.
wbt does have tracing, but we've never had tracing on the sleep/wakeup
parts. But that's pretty much completely orthogonal to the issue, that
should be done as a separate patch, if useful.
BTW, I've now tested this and it seems to work fine for me.
--
Jens Axboe
