From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Shaohua Li Subject: Re: [patch 1/8] raid5: add a per-stripe lock Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 14:29:39 +0800 Message-ID: <20120607062939.GA779@kernel.org> References: <20120604080152.098975870@kernel.org> <20120604080300.519377228@kernel.org> <20120607105410.415d9fe6@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120607105410.415d9fe6@notabene.brown> Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: NeilBrown Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk, dan.j.williams@intel.com, shli@fusionio.com List-Id: linux-raid.ids On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 10:54:10AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 16:01:53 +0800 Shaohua Li wrote: > > > Add a per-stripe lock to protect stripe specific data, like dev->read, > > written, ... The purpose is to reduce lock contention of conf->device_lock. > > I'm not convinced that you need to add a lock. > I am convinced that if you do add one you need to explain exactly what it is > protecting. > > The STRIPE_ACTIVE bit serves as a lock and ensures that only one process can > be in handle_stripe at a time. > So I don't think dev->read actually needs any protection (though I haven't > checked thoroughly). > > I think the only things that device_lock protects are things shared by > multiple stripes, so adding a per-stripe spinlock isn't going to help remove > device_lock. This sounds not true to me. both the async callbacks and request completion access stripe data, like dev->read. Such things are not protected by STRIPE_ACTIVE bit. Thought we can delete STRIPE_ACTIVE bit with stripe lock introduced.