mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: piaojun <piaojun@huawei.com>
To: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
Cc: "akpm@linux-foundation.org" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"Eric Van Hensbergen" <ericvh@gmail.com>,
	Ron Minnich <rminnich@sandia.gov>,
	"Latchesar Ionkov" <lucho@ionkov.net>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/9p/trans_virtio.c: replace mutex_lock with spin_lock to protect 'virtio_chan_list'
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 10:26:35 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5B4FF6DB.1040101@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180718095420.GA28377@nautica>

Hi Dominique,

On 2018/7/18 17:54, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> piaojun wrote on Wed, Jul 18, 2018:
>> spin_lock is more effective for short time protection than mutex_lock, as
>> mutex lock may cause process sleep and wake up which consume much cpu
>> time.
> 
> That's not a fast path operation, I don't mind changing things but I'd
> like to understand why - these functions are only ever called at unmount
> time or when something happens on the virtio bus (probe will happen on
> probing on the pci bus and I'm not too sure on remove but probably pci
> removal i.e. basically never?)
> 
> I don't see why this wouldn't work, but I won't take this without a
> (good?) reason.
> 
virtio_9p_lock is responsable for protecting virtio_chan_list which has 3
operation:

1. Add a virtio chan to virtio_chan_list. This will happen when we insmod
9pnet_virtio.ko:
p9_virtio_probe
--list_add_tail(&chan->chan_list, &virtio_chan_list);

2. Remove a virtio chan. This will happen when remnod 9pnet_virtio.ko:
p9_virtio_remove
--list_del(&chan->chan_list);

3. Find a unused virtio chan when mount 9p:
mount
--p9_virtio_create
--list_for_each_entry(chan, &virtio_chan_list, chan_list)

Multi mount process will compete for virtio_9p_lock when finding unused
virtio chan, in which case mutex lock will cause process sleep and wake
up. I think this a waste of CPU time. So we could use spin lock to avoid
this.

Thanks,
Jun

  reply	other threads:[~2018-07-19  2:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-07-18  8:06 piaojun
2018-07-18  9:54 ` Dominique Martinet
2018-07-19  2:26   ` piaojun [this message]
2018-07-19  3:36     ` Dominique Martinet
2018-07-19  7:44       ` piaojun

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=5B4FF6DB.1040101@huawei.com \
    --to=piaojun@huawei.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=asmadeus@codewreck.org \
    --cc=ericvh@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lucho@ionkov.net \
    --cc=rminnich@sandia.gov \
    --cc=v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net \
    /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