lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] tcm: Convert to cpu_relax() for atomic_read() in tight loops
On 09/09/2010 11:29 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> From: Nicholas Bellinger <nab@linux-iscsi.org>
>
> Greetings all,
>
> This patch converts the following functions from within shutdown and release
> path code to use cpu_relax() instead of msleep() while doing atomic_read() in
> a tight loop waiting for various PR and MIB reference count(s) to return to zero:
>
> *) core_update_device_list_for_node() + struct se_dev_entry->pr_ref_count
> *) core_release_port() + struct se_port->sep_tg_pt_ref_cnt
> *) se_dev_stop() + struct se_hba->dev_mib_access_count
> *) __core_scsi3_free_registration() + struct t10_pr_registration->pr_res_holders
> *) core_tpg_wait_for_nacl_pr_ref() + struct se_node_acl->acl_pr_ref_count
> *) core_tpg_wait_for_mib_ref() + struct se_node_acl->mib_ref_count
> *) core_tpg_deregister() + struct se_portal_group->tpg_pr_ref_count
> *) transport_deregister_session() + struct se_session->mib_ref_count
>
> Thanks to Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk for mentioning cpu_relax() usage!
>
> Signed-off-by: Nicholas A. Bellinger <nab@linux-iscsi.org>
> ---
> drivers/target/target_core_device.c | 6 +++---
> drivers/target/target_core_pr.c | 2 +-
> drivers/target/target_core_tpg.c | 6 +++---
> drivers/target/target_core_transport.c | 2 +-
> 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_device.c b/drivers/target/target_core_device.c
> index 665b8e2..459f0f8 100644
> --- a/drivers/target/target_core_device.c
> +++ b/drivers/target/target_core_device.c
> @@ -532,7 +532,7 @@ int core_update_device_list_for_node(
> */
> spin_unlock_irq(&nacl->device_list_lock);
> while (atomic_read(&deve->pr_ref_count) != 0)
> - msleep(100);
> + cpu_relax();
> spin_lock_irq(&nacl->device_list_lock);
> /*
> * Disable struct se_dev_entry LUN ACL mapping

Why would you want to convert those to busy-waiting? This should rather
be converted to wait_event/wake_up, right?

thanks,
--
js


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-09-10 08:35    [W:0.047 / U:0.256 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site