Re: [PATCH 2/2]block cfq: don't use atomic_t for cfq_group

[Vivek Goyal]

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 10:45:35AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
> cfq_group->ref is used with queue_lock hold, the only exception is
> cfq_set_request, which looks like a bug to me, so ref doesn't need
> to be an atomic and atomic operation is slower.
> 

[..]
>  
> @@ -3683,12 +3685,13 @@ new_queue:
>  
>  	cfqq->allocated[rw]++;
>  	cfqq->ref++;
> +	cfqg = cfq_ref_get_cfqg(cfqq->cfqg);
>  
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(q->queue_lock, flags);
>  
>  	rq->elevator_private = cic;
>  	rq->elevator_private2 = cfqq;
> -	rq->elevator_private3 = cfq_ref_get_cfqg(cfqq->cfqg);
> +	rq->elevator_private3 = cfqg;

I think you can move every thing under spinlock. IOW, first set the
rq->elevator_private* fields and delay the release of spinlock. Few
days back I was also looking at wondering that why are we releasing
the spinlock early.

Thanks
Vivek
--
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/