On 08/01/2013 04:21 PM, scameron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 04:05:20PM +0200, Tomas Henzl wrote:
>> On 08/01/2013 03:39 PM, scameron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 03:11:22PM +0200, Tomas Henzl wrote:
>>>> From: Tomas Henzl <thenzl@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> The cmd_pool_bits is protected everywhere with a spinlock,
>>>> we don't need the test_and_set_bit, set_bit is enough and the loop
>>>> can be removed too.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Tomas Henzl <thenzl@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/scsi/hpsa.c | 15 ++++++---------
>>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/hpsa.c b/drivers/scsi/hpsa.c
>>>> index 796482b..d7df01e 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/scsi/hpsa.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/hpsa.c
>>>> @@ -2662,15 +2662,12 @@ static struct CommandList *cmd_alloc(struct ctlr_info *h)
>>>> unsigned long flags;
>>>>
>>>> spin_lock_irqsave(&h->lock, flags);
>>>> - do {
>>>> - i = find_first_zero_bit(h->cmd_pool_bits, h->nr_cmds);
>>>> - if (i == h->nr_cmds) {
>>>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&h->lock, flags);
>>>> - return NULL;
>>>> - }
>>>> - } while (test_and_set_bit
>>>> - (i & (BITS_PER_LONG - 1),
>>>> - h->cmd_pool_bits + (i / BITS_PER_LONG)) != 0);
>>>> + i = find_first_zero_bit(h->cmd_pool_bits, h->nr_cmds);
>>>> + if (i == h->nr_cmds) {
>>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&h->lock, flags);
>>>> + return NULL;
>>>> + }
>>>> + set_bit(i & (BITS_PER_LONG - 1), h->cmd_pool_bits + (i / BITS_PER_LONG));
>>>> h->nr_allocs++;
>>>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&h->lock, flags);
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 1.8.3.1
>>>>
>>> Would it be better instead to just not use the spinlock for protecting
>>> cmd_pool_bits? I have thought about doing this for awhile, but haven't
>>> gotten around to it.
>>>
>>> I think the while loop is safe without the spin lock. And then it is
>>> not needed in cmd_free either.
>> I was evaluating the same idea for a while too, a loop and inside just the test_and_set_bit,
>> maybe even a stored value to start with a likely empty bit from last time to tune it a bit.
>> But I know almost nothing about the use pattern, so I decided for the least invasive change
>> to the existing code, to not make it worse.
> Only reason I haven't done it is I'm loathe to make such a change to the main i/o
> path without testing it like crazy before unleashing it, and it's never been a
> convenient time to slide such a change in around here and get proper testing
> done (and there are other rather large changes brewing).
>
> However, we have been using a similar scheme with the SCSI over PCIe driver,
> here: https://github.com/HPSmartStorage/scsi-over-pcie/blob/master/block/sop.c
> in alloc_request() around line 1476 without problems, and nvme-core.c contains
> similar code in alloc_cmdid(), so I am confident it's sound in principle.
> I would want to beat on it though, in case it ends up exposing a firmware bug
> or something (not that I think it will, but you never know.)
I think the code is sound, maybe it could hypothetically return -EBUSY, because
the find_first_zero_bit is not atomic, but this possibility is so low that it doesn't matter.
Btw. on line 1284 - isn't it similar to patch 2/3 ?
Back to this patch - we can take it as it is, because of the spinlock it should be safe,
or omit it, you can then post a spinlock-less patch. I'll let the decision on you.
tomash
>
> -- steve
>
>
>
>>
>>> -- steve
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
--
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
