![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06 2005, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>>No that's right... but between the prepare_to_wait and the io_schedule,
>>get_request takes the lock and checks nr_requests. I think we are safe?
>
>
> It looks like it, yes you are right. But it looks to be needed a few
> lines further down instead, though :-)
>
> ===== drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c 1.281 vs edited =====
> --- 1.281/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c 2004-12-01 09:13:57 +01:00
> +++ edited/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c 2005-01-06 09:32:19 +01:00
> @@ -1630,11 +1630,11 @@
> if (rl->count[rw] < queue_congestion_off_threshold(q))
> clear_queue_congested(q, rw);
> if (rl->count[rw]+1 <= q->nr_requests) {
> - smp_mb();
> if (waitqueue_active(&rl->wait[rw]))
> wake_up(&rl->wait[rw]);
> blk_clear_queue_full(q, rw);
> }
> + smp_mb();
> if (unlikely(waitqueue_active(&rl->drain)) &&
> !rl->count[READ] && !rl->count[WRITE])
> wake_up(&rl->drain);
>
Yes, looks like you're right there.
Any point in doing it like this
if (!rl->count[READ] && !rl->count[WRITE]) {
smb_mb();
if (unlikely(waitqueue_active(...)))
wake_up()
}
I wonder? I don't have any feeling of how memory barriers impact performance
on a very parallel system with CPUs that do lots of memory reordering like
POWER5.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||