From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752902Ab0IQQp4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:45:56 -0400 Received: from smtp104.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.198.203]:39449 "HELO smtp104.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751679Ab0IQQpy (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Sep 2010 12:45:54 -0400 X-Yahoo-SMTP: fzDSGlOswBCWnIOrNw7KwwK1j9PqyNbe5PtLKiS4dDU.UNl_t6bdEZu9tTLW X-YMail-OSG: kDo42VQVM1n5gw1OnUFcp6I3InRvvd70cDXPIM5oglFBVt3 _hB90mD1M1gE865fFdZ5RrzvYU1pz.fkKhFszYDXNtztsrlY2UoMCYen6Gr1 svtN.rRedtBDAIqpkrtN_t7MzrWL0VfpyUz6ne7joHvTs9Eav7G57DplnX3c SuQjjIphR.zp9FUDDz1reqBKztKLU5tUSWHZsJpKtL4R24RRj7xuG_3XIlMP yg53B3TVV1lnaEPmxQxACgU2y2ldRO8pVyuwNKm4uWRgvhyHO62c.oSLa X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] scsi: Drop struct Scsi_Host->host_lock around SHT->queuecommand() From: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" To: James Bottomley Cc: Andi Kleen , linux-scsi , linux-kernel , Vasu Dev , Tim Chen , Matthew Wilcox , Mike Christie , James Smart , Andrew Vasquez , FUJITA Tomonori , Hannes Reinecke , Joe Eykholt , Christoph Hellwig In-Reply-To: <1284741478.13344.154.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> References: <1284676529-10756-1-git-send-email-nab@linux-iscsi.org> <1284691571.26423.50.camel@mulgrave.site> <20100917072022.GB2644@gargoyle.ger.corp.intel.com> <1284725592.26423.60.camel@mulgrave.site> <4C9379AA.4000103@linux.intel.com> <1284735438.26423.81.camel@mulgrave.site> <1284741478.13344.154.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:41:44 -0700 Message-Id: <1284741704.13344.157.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 09:37 -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 10:57 -0400, James Bottomley wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 16:22 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > I don't disagree with the idea of removing it, especially as it has so > > > > few users, but replacing the host lock with an atomic here would still > > > > vastly reduce the contention, which is the initial complaint. The > > > > > > Actually the complaint is the overhead of the spin lock. This can be > > > either caused > > > by contention or by cache line bounce time. > > > > The original complaint was contention. My desire is to reduce the > > locked path coverage, so I saw an opportunity. > > > > What I was actually thinking of for the atomic is that we'd let it range > > [1..INT_MAX] so a zero was an indicator of no use of this. Then the > > actual code could become > > > > if (atomic_read(x)) { > > do { > > y = atomic_add_return(1, x); > > } while (y == 0); > > } > > The conversion of struct scsi_cmnd->serial_number to atomic_t and the > above code for scsi_cmd_get_serial() sounds perfectly reasonable to me. > Actually, that should be the conversion of struct Scsi_Host->cmd_serial_number to an atomic_t. AFAICT there is no reason for struct scsi_cmnd->serial_number needing to be an atomic_t. Best, --nab