On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 10:50:46AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:24:50 +0800 Shaohua Li <shli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Add a per-stripe lock to protect stripe specific data, like dev->read, > > written, ... The purpose is to reduce lock contention of conf->device_lock. > > > > Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <shli@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I had hoped to avoid having a per-stripe lock again, but it does look like it > is needed. > However I don't like the way you have split up these three patches - it makes > them a little hard to review. > > I would like to see one patch which converts the bi_phys_segments access to > be atomic and also removes all the spin_lock calls that were just for > protecting that. > > Then another patch which adds the new stripe_lock, clearly documenting > exactly what is protects (not just "like dev->read" but an explicit list) > and also removes any spin_lock of device_lock that is no longer needed. > > Then I could see what is being added and what is being removed all in the one > patch and I can be sure that they balance. reworked the patch 3-5 to two patches as you suggested, and sent to you. please check. Thanks, Shaohua -- 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
