From: Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@suse.de>
Cc: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@linux-iscsi.org>,
linux-scsi <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Vasu Dev <vasu.dev@linux.intel.com>,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>,
Mike Christie <michaelc@cs.wisc.edu>,
James Smart <james.smart@emulex.com>,
Andrew Vasquez <andrew.vasquez@qlogic.com>,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, Joe Eykholt <jeykholt@cisco.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] scsi: Drop struct Scsi_Host->host_lock around SHT->queuecommand()
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 16:22:34 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C9379AA.4000103@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1284725592.26423.60.camel@mulgrave.site>
> 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.
> contention occurs because the host lock is so widely used for other
> things. The way to reduce that contention is firstly to reduce the
> length of code covered by the lock and also reduce the actual number of
> places where the lock is taken. Compared with host lock's current vast
> footprint, and atomic here is tiny.
That assumes that it's contention that is the problem and not simply
bounce time.
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-09-17 14:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-09-16 22:35 [PATCH 1/8] scsi: Drop struct Scsi_Host->host_lock around SHT->queuecommand() Nicholas A. Bellinger
2010-09-17 2:46 ` James Bottomley
2010-09-17 3:02 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2010-09-17 3:20 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-09-17 7:20 ` Andi Kleen
2010-09-17 12:13 ` James Bottomley
2010-09-17 14:22 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2010-09-17 14:57 ` James Bottomley
2010-09-17 16:37 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2010-09-17 16:41 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2010-09-17 17:49 ` Tim Chen
2010-09-17 18:21 ` Nicholas A. Bellinger
2010-09-17 17:24 ` Joe Eykholt
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=4C9379AA.4000103@linux.intel.com \
--to=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@suse.de \
--cc=andrew.vasquez@qlogic.com \
--cc=fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=james.smart@emulex.com \
--cc=jeykholt@cisco.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michaelc@cs.wisc.edu \
--cc=nab@linux-iscsi.org \
--cc=tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=vasu.dev@linux.intel.com \
--cc=willy@linux.intel.com \
/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).