On 09/15/2015 11:41 AM, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:38:42AM -0700, James Bottomley wrote: >> For most of the SCSI stuff, yes. I'm less sure about the sd numbers. >> They go up very high and get hammered a lot during system bring up and >> hot plug. I think having their own lock rather than wrapping everything >> around simple_ida_lock makes more sense here just because the system is >> heavily contended on getting indexes at bring up. >> >> To continue the thought, why not move simple_ida_lock into struct ida so >> we don't have to worry about the contention and can sue ida_simple_... >> everywhere? > > We sure can do that if necessary but I'm rather doubtful that even > with sd number hammering this is likely to be a problem. Let's > convert the users to the simple interface and make the lock per-ida if > we actually see contention on the lock. > > Thanks. > To be clear: you would like a patch series that converts the users of the ida_* routines in my patches to instead use the ida_simple_* routines, correct? And of course the ida_* helper routines I was adding in idr.h would not be needed. If this is correct, I will supply a version 2 patch series that addresses this issue as well as the two patch-naming issues that were raised. -- Lee Duncan -- 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
