From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>
Cc: Stefan Richter <stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [SCSI] sr: fix multi-drive performance, remove BKL replacement
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 16:42:16 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201202281642.16496.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1330445795.2822.134.camel@dabdike.int.hansenpartnership.com>
On Tuesday 28 February 2012, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-02-28 at 17:09 +0100, Stefan Richter wrote:
> > On Feb 28 James Bottomley wrote:
> >
> > While I do remove sr_mutex aroud scsi_cd_get/put() calls, these ones
> > internally use another lock: sr_ref_mutex. Always did, still do, since
> > neither Arnd's mechanical BKL pushdown and BKL-to-mutex conversions
> > patches nor my patch changed that. This sr_ref_mutex also protects sr's
> > reference counting outside of the three block_device_operations methods
> > which I changed.
> >
> > I suppose I could have mentioned right away in the changelog that the
> > sr driver's own reference counting serialization remains in place, via that
> > other mutex.
>
> OK, agreed ... the thing that caught my eye was the get/open and the
> release/put, but I think that's completely safe.
I took another look and I believe the cdi->use_count in
cdrom_open/cdrom_release still requires some protection that is
currently provided by sr_mutex. Some parts of cdrom_ioctl also
access this variable and things like cdi->options or cdi->keeplocked.
I could imagine that you can get rid of the mutex if you turn those
into atomics and bitops, but there may be other parts of cdrom_device_info
that need locking. A safer option to solve the performance problems
could be to replace sr_mutex with a per-device mutex inside of
cdrom_device_info.
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-28 16:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-28 14:32 Stefan Richter
2012-02-28 15:00 ` James Bottomley
2012-02-28 16:09 ` Stefan Richter
2012-02-28 16:16 ` James Bottomley
2012-02-28 16:42 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2012-02-28 16:57 ` James Bottomley
2012-02-28 17:11 ` Stefan Richter
2012-02-28 16:22 ` Stefan Richter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201202281642.16496.arnd@arndb.de \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stefanr@s5r6.in-berlin.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome