lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V3] block: Mitigate lock unbalance caused by lock switching
On 05/30/2012 08:28 AM, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Asias He <asias@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Isn't the 'if' clause superfluous ? You could just do the assignment,
>>> e.g.,
>>>
>>> + spin_lock_irq(lock);
>>> + q->queue_lock =&q->__queue_lock;
>>> + spin_unlock_irq(lock);
>>
>>
>> Well, this saves a if clause but adds an unnecessary assignment if the lock
>> is already internal lock.
>
> It's not hot path. Dirtying the cacheline there doesn't mean anything.
> I don't really care either way but making optimization argument is
> pretty silly here.

And more importantly, dropping the if loses information as well. That's
a lot more important than any misguided optimization attempts. So I
agree, the if stays.

--
Jens Axboe



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-06-01 13:01    [W:0.073 / U:28.128 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site