From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Cc: linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
James Bottomley <jbottomley@parallels.com>,
Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Chanho Min <chanho.min@lge.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] block: Avoid that request_fn is invoked on a dead queue
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 12:13:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121024191316.GE12182@atj.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50868971.2060209@acm.org>
Hello, Bart.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 02:11:29PM +0200, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> >__blk_run_queue_uncond() is a cold path and I don't think adding a
> >test there matters but I think it would be better if we avoid an extra
> >branch if possible for __blk_run_queue(). Can't we merge
> >blk_queue_stopped/dead() testing?
>
> How about declaring the function __blk_run_queue_uncond() inline ?
> That should allow the compiler to combine the two tests into a
> single test.
Let's leave it as-is for now. Given the later patches, I no longer
think it would be better to merge the testings.
Thanks!
--
tejun
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-24 19:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-10 15:05 [PATCH 0/4 v4] More device removal fixes Bart Van Assche
2012-10-10 15:07 ` [PATCH 1/4] block: Rename queue dead flag Bart Van Assche
2012-10-16 23:31 ` Tejun Heo
2012-10-10 15:08 ` [PATCH 2/4] block: Avoid that request_fn is invoked on a dead queue Bart Van Assche
2012-10-16 23:38 ` Tejun Heo
2012-10-23 12:11 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-10-24 19:13 ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2012-10-10 15:09 ` [PATCH 3/4] Make blk_cleanup_queue() wait until request_fn finished Bart Van Assche
2012-10-16 23:51 ` Tejun Heo
2012-10-23 12:16 ` Bart Van Assche
2012-10-24 19:11 ` Tejun Heo
2012-10-10 15:10 ` [PATCH 4/4] Fix race between starved list processing and device removal Bart Van Assche
2012-10-16 23:59 ` Tejun Heo
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=20121024191316.GE12182@atj.dyndns.org \
--to=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=chanho.min@lge.com \
--cc=jbottomley@parallels.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michaelc@cs.wisc.edu \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).