Re: [PATCH] Moving spinlock to struct usb_hcd

[Romit Dasgupta]

Hi,
                 Should I go ahead and submit the patch with the usual
"signed-off" thingie? Or is it totally useless patch that is going to
be ignored?

Thanks,
-Romit


On Jan 26, 2008 9:06 PM, Romit Dasgupta <romlinux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Looking at how this lock is used, contention doesn't look likely
> > to be an issue.  It's never held for long ...
> yes in the general case but in usb_hcd_flush_endpoint routine it seems
> to be held for longer than other routines. I agree that
> usb_hcd_flush_endpoint is an infrequently called routine. Normal
> systems dont have too many HCs. My computer shows 1 EHCI and 3 OHCIs
> so I guess when I connect high speed devices there are less chances of
> contention. With more HC this lock might be contended for.
> Nevertheless, the right place for the lock seems to be inside usb_hcd.
> What do you think?
>
> >
> >
> > Do you have any proof that contention is an actual problem?
> > Because otherwise I see no benefit to such a change.
> >
>
> I will try to see what I can find with /proc/lock_stat.
>
> Thanks,
> -Romit
>
--
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/