On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:58:34AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
> I was trying not to add a new mutex to a structure just for blktrace as
> it is an optional feature that is enabled only if the
> CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IO_TRACE config option is defined and it will only need
> to be taken occasionally.
So? Make the lock optional, too.
> As filesystem freeze looks orthogonal to blktrace and the mutex also
> looks to be used sparingly, I think it is a good match to overload it to
> control blktrace as well.
If the functionally is orthogonal that is a reason not to share a lock,
not to the contrary.
> I could modify the patch to use a mutex in the request_queue structure.
> The current sysfs_lock mutex has about 74 references. So I am not
> totally sure if it is safe to reuse. So the only option is to add
> something like
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IO_TRACE
> struct mutex blktrace_mutex;
> #endif
>
> to the request_queue structure. That structure is large enough that
> adding a mutex won't increase the size much percentage-wise.
Call it blk_trace mutex and move it right next to the blk_trace
structure:
ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_IO_TRACE
struct blk_trace *blk_trace;
struct mutex blk_trace_mutex;
#endif
which makes it completely obvious to any read what you are protecting
with it.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
