On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 09:37 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 10:57 -0400, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 16:22 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > I don't disagree with the idea of removing it, especially as it has so
> > > > few users, but replacing the host lock with an atomic here would still
> > > > vastly reduce the contention, which is the initial complaint. The
> > >
> > > Actually the complaint is the overhead of the spin lock. This can be
> > > either caused
> > > by contention or by cache line bounce time.
> >
> > The original complaint was contention. My desire is to reduce the
> > locked path coverage, so I saw an opportunity.
> >
> > What I was actually thinking of for the atomic is that we'd let it range
> > [1..INT_MAX] so a zero was an indicator of no use of this. Then the
> > actual code could become
> >
> > if (atomic_read(x)) {
> > do {
> > y = atomic_add_return(1, x);
> > } while (y == 0);
> > }
>
> The conversion of struct scsi_cmnd->serial_number to atomic_t and the
> above code for scsi_cmd_get_serial() sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
>
Actually, that should be the conversion of struct
Scsi_Host->cmd_serial_number to an atomic_t. AFAICT there is no reason
for struct scsi_cmnd->serial_number needing to be an atomic_t.
Best,
--nab
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
