On Monday March 3, maan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On 11:17, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> > So we create a new function 'flush_pending_writes' to give that attention,
> > and call it in freeze_array to be sure that we aren't waiting on raid1d.
>
> Two minor remarks:
Thanks for looking.
>
> Do we really need to take the spin lock in the common case where
> conf->pending_bio_list.head is NULL? If not, the above could be
> optimized to the slightly faster and better readable
>
> struct bio *bio;
>
> if (!conf->pending_bio_list.head)
> return 0;
> spin_lock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> bio = bio_list_get(&conf->pending_bio_list);
> ...
> spin_unlock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> return 1;
Maybe... If I write a memory location inside a spinlock, then after
the spinlock is dropped, I read that location on a different CPU,
am I always guaranteed to see the new value? or do I need some sort of
memory barrier?
If I could be clear on that (and memory-barriers.txt isn't
helping... maybe if I read it 7 more times) then we probably could
make the change you suggest.
???
>
>
> > diff .prev/drivers/md/raid1.c ./drivers/md/raid1.c
> > --- .prev/drivers/md/raid1.c 2008-02-22 15:45:35.000000000 +1100
> > +++ ./drivers/md/raid1.c 2008-02-22 15:45:35.000000000 +1100
> > @@ -592,6 +592,37 @@ static int raid1_congested(void *data, i
> > }
> >
> >
> > +static int flush_pending_writes(conf_t *conf)
> > +{
>
> [snip]
>
> Any chance to avoid this code duplication?
Not really.
The "conf_t" in each case is a very different conf_t that just happens
to have the same name and some common fields.
There is actually quite a lot of structural similarity between raid1
and raid10, but I don't think there is much to be gained by trying to
share code there.
Thanks,
NeilBrown
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
