Re: [PATCH 0/8] Drop host_lock around LLD SHT->queuecommand() caller

[Jeff Garzik]

On 09/16/2010 09:31 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 18:29 -0700, Tim Chen wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 15:35 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > From: Nicholas Bellinger<nab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Greetings all,
> > >
> > > This series contains the first round of a whole-sale conversion for droping
> > > struct Scsi_Host->host_lock around struct Scsi_Host->queuecommand() within
> > > scsi_dispatch_cmd().  So with this first patch the only part of scsi_dispatch_cmd()
> > > that is protected by host_lock is scsi_cmd_get_serial)_.
> >
> > Maybe we can change the host->cmd_serial_number to atomic and totally
> > avoid the need to take host_lock.
>
> Hmmmm good point, then we would also need an atomic_t for signaling
> (shost_state == SHOST_DEL) in scsi_dispatch_cmd() to be able to
> completly drop host_lock usage within scsi_dispatch_cmd().
>
> I can take a look at doing this specific part, if you would be willing
> to have a look at the host->cmd_serial_number conversion piece.  ;)

But that raises the familiar tale of:  using multiple atomics (w/ their 
locked instructions) may cost more than a spinlock.

	Jeff



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/