On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 12:51:13PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> On 12/01/2022 12:30, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > + if (test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_HCTX_ACTIVE, &q->queue_flags) ||
> > > > > + test_and_set_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_HCTX_ACTIVE, &q->queue_flags)) {
> > > > Whoever wrote this code did too much defensive programming, because the first
> > > > conditional doesn't make much sense here. Am I right?
> > > >
> > > I think because this judgement is in the general IO process, there are also
> > > some performance considerations here.
> > I didn't buy this. Is there any better argument why you need redundant
> > test_bit() call?
>
> I think that the idea is that test_bit() is fast and test_and_set_bit() is
> slow; as such, if we generally expect the bit to be set, then there is no
> need to do the slower test_and_set_bit() always.
It doesn't sound thought through solution, the bit can be flipped in between,
so what is this all about? Maybe missing proper serialization somewhere else?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
