[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] Status of unlocked_qcmds=1 operation for .37
    On 10/28/2010 08:26 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
    >> I disagree with your approach this introduces a spin_unlock_irqrestore
    >> call site at every return, in the usually huge queuecommand.
    > I converted the full tree and in practice it turns out there
    > are very few returns in nearly all queuecommands. So it won't
    > make much difference.

    "few returns" is too much. Any thing bigger than 1 is a total wast.

    And the mess?!? Where to add the flags? where the returns? Need a
    "{...}" or not. Lots of manual intervention, and possible errors.
    I bet with my approach you wouldn't need to manually fix a single

    > Longer term they will be all hopefully gone again anyways.

    That one I'm most afraid of. These that did not get fixed in this
    round, will not be fixed for a long time (if ever). I'd even go
    anal and not open code the lock but actually call the original
    __queue_command through a MACRO, that can be change in one place.
    (And will solve your patchset bisect-ability)

    - XXX_queue_command(...
    + XXX_queue_command_unlocked(...

    + XXX_queue_command(...
    + {
    + return SCSI_LOCKED_QUEUECOMMAND(XXX_queue_command_unlocked, ...);
    + }
    > -Andi

    But since I'm only blabing, the one that "do", gets to decide ;-) .
    Perhaps next time.


     \ /
      Last update: 2010-10-31 13:17    [W:0.020 / U:0.740 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site