From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
Cc: QiuLaibin <qiulaibin@huawei.com>,
axboe@kernel.dk, ming.lei@redhat.com, martin.petersen@oracle.com,
hare@suse.de, johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com, bvanassche@acm.org,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v4] blk-mq: fix tag_get wait task can't be awakened
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 16:38:39 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yd7n7xA9ecF1/0DK@smile.fi.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3d386998-d810-5036-a87e-50aba9f56639@huawei.com>
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 12:51:13PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> On 12/01/2022 12:30, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > + if (test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_HCTX_ACTIVE, &q->queue_flags) ||
> > > > > + test_and_set_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_HCTX_ACTIVE, &q->queue_flags)) {
> > > > Whoever wrote this code did too much defensive programming, because the first
> > > > conditional doesn't make much sense here. Am I right?
> > > >
> > > I think because this judgement is in the general IO process, there are also
> > > some performance considerations here.
> > I didn't buy this. Is there any better argument why you need redundant
> > test_bit() call?
>
> I think that the idea is that test_bit() is fast and test_and_set_bit() is
> slow; as such, if we generally expect the bit to be set, then there is no
> need to do the slower test_and_set_bit() always.
It doesn't sound thought through solution, the bit can be flipped in between,
so what is this all about? Maybe missing proper serialization somewhere else?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-12 14:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-11 14:02 [PATCH -next v4] blk-mq: fix tag_get wait task can't be awakened Laibin Qiu
2022-01-11 14:15 ` Andy Shevchenko
2022-01-12 4:18 ` QiuLaibin
2022-01-12 12:30 ` Andy Shevchenko
2022-01-12 12:51 ` John Garry
2022-01-12 14:38 ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
2022-01-12 15:37 ` Jens Axboe
2022-01-12 16:29 ` Andy Shevchenko
2022-01-12 16:38 ` Jens Axboe
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=Yd7n7xA9ecF1/0DK@smile.fi.intel.com \
--to=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=bvanassche@acm.org \
--cc=hare@suse.de \
--cc=johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com \
--cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=qiulaibin@huawei.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