Re: [PATCH V3] block: Mitigate lock unbalance caused by lock switching

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

 



On 05/29/2012 09:45 PM, Tim Gardner wrote:
On 05/28/2012 07:39 PM, Asias He wrote:

<snip>

@@ -440,6 +435,11 @@ void blk_cleanup_queue(struct request_queue *q)
  	del_timer_sync(&q->backing_dev_info.laptop_mode_wb_timer);
  	blk_sync_queue(q);

+	spin_lock_irq(lock);
+	if (q->queue_lock !=&q->__queue_lock)
+		q->queue_lock =&q->__queue_lock;
+	spin_unlock_irq(lock);
+

Isn't the 'if' clause superfluous ? You could just do the assignment, e.g.,

+	spin_lock_irq(lock);
+	q->queue_lock =&q->__queue_lock;
+	spin_unlock_irq(lock);

Well, this saves a if clause but adds an unnecessary assignment if the lock is already internal lock.

--
Asias
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux