On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 05:22:54PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 05:28:29AM -0800, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> > pool->lock is also going to be fairly badly contended in the worst case,
> > and that can get real bad real fast... now that I think about it we
> > probably want to avoid the __alloc_global_tag() double call just because
> > of that, pool->lock is going to be quite a bit more contended than the
> > waitlist lock just because fo the amount of work done under it.
> Now everything modifying percpu_ida_cpu state holds
> percpu_ida_cpu::lock
Almost that.
---
--- a/lib/percpu_ida.c
+++ b/lib/percpu_ida.c
@@ -51,6 +51,15 @@ static inline void move_tags(unsigned *d
*dst_nr += nr;
}
+static inline void double_lock(spinlock_t *l1, spinlock_t *l2)
+{
+ if (l1 > l2)
+ swap(l1, l2);
+
+ spin_lock(l1);
+ spin_lock_nested(l2, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
+}
+
/*
* Try to steal tags from a remote cpu's percpu freelist.
*
@@ -87,7 +96,7 @@ static inline void steal_tags(struct per
if (remote == tags)
continue;
- spin_lock(&remote->lock);
+ double_lock(&tags->lock, &remote->lock);
if (remote->nr_free) {
memcpy(tags->freelist,
@@ -99,6 +108,7 @@ static inline void steal_tags(struct per
}
spin_unlock(&remote->lock);
+ spin_unlock(&tags->lock);
if (tags->nr_free)
break;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe target-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
