Re: [RFC PATCH] block: protect bi_status with spinlock

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 3/28/21 8:02 PM, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2021 at 10:23:37PM -0400, Yufen Yu wrote:
>>  static struct bio *__bio_chain_endio(struct bio *bio)
>>  {
>>  	struct bio *parent = bio->bi_private;
>> +	unsigned long flags;
>>  
>> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&parent->bi_lock, flags);
>>  	if (!parent->bi_status)
>>  		parent->bi_status = bio->bi_status;
>> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&parent->bi_lock, flags);
> 
> 
> I don't see a spin_lock_init() on this new lock, though a spinlock seems
> overkill here. If you need an atomic update, you could do:
> 
> 	cmpxchg(&parent->bi_status, 0, bio->bi_status);

Hmm ... isn't cmpxchg() significantly slower than a spinlock?

Thanks,

Bart.



[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [IDE]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux