On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:36:32PM +0800, Coly Li wrote:
> 在 2016/11/16 下午10:19, Coly Li 写道:
> [snip]
> > ---
> > drivers/md/raid1.c | 9 +++++----
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-raid1/drivers/md/raid1.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-raid1.orig/drivers/md/raid1.c
> > +++ linux-raid1/drivers/md/raid1.c
> > @@ -2387,17 +2387,17 @@ static void raid1d(struct md_thread *thr
> [snip]
> > while (!list_empty(&tmp)) {
> > r1_bio = list_first_entry(&tmp, struct r1bio,
> > retry_list);
> > list_del(&r1_bio->retry_list);
> > + spin_lock_irqsave(&conf->device_lock, flags);
> > + conf->nr_queued--;
> > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&conf->device_lock, flags);
> [snip]
>
> Now I work on another 2 patches for a simpler I/O barrier, and a
> lockless I/O submit on raid1, where conf->nr_queued will be in atomic_t.
> So spin lock expense will not exist any more. Just FYI.
I'd like to hold this patch till you post the simpler I/O barrier, as the patch
itself currently doesn't make the process faster (lock/unlock is much heavier
than the loop).
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
