Re: [PATCH 0/8] Drop host_lock around LLD SHT->queuecommand() caller

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

 



On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 14:26 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:

> 
> But that raises the familiar tale of:  using multiple atomics (w/ their 
> locked instructions) may cost more than a spinlock.
> 

As brought up by James earlier, the scsi_host lock was used in so many
places that getting rid of it here to reduce contention for it will be a
net win, even with the cost of the atomics.  And for most LLDs that
don't need the serial number, we can just initialize it to zero for
those and have no need to increment it (thus also avoiding the atomics'
cost).

Tim

--
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


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [SCSI Target Devel]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Linux IIO]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux