Il 04/09/2012 15:35, Michael S. Tsirkin ha scritto:
> I see. I guess you can rewrite this as:
> atomic_inc
> if (atomic_read() == 1)
> which is a bit cheaper, and make the fact
> that you do not need increment and return to be atomic,
> explicit.
It seems more complicated to me for hardly any reason. (Besides, is it
cheaper? It has one less memory barrier on some architectures I frankly
do not care much about---not on x86---but it also has two memory
accesses instead of one on all architectures).
> Another simple idea: store last processor id in target,
> if it is unchanged no need to play with req_vq
> and take spinlock.
Not so sure, consider the previous example with last_processor_id equal
to 1.
queuecommand on CPU #0 queuecommand #2 on CPU #1
--------------------------------------------------------------
atomic_inc_return(...) == 1
atomic_inc_return(...) == 2
virtscsi_queuecommand to queue #1
last_processor_id == 0? no
spin_lock
tgt->req_vq = queue #0
spin_unlock
virtscsi_queuecommand to queue #0
This is not a network driver, there are still a lot of locks around.
This micro-optimization doesn't pay enough for the pain.
> Also - some kind of comment explaining why a similar race can not happen
> with this lock in place would be nice: I see why this specific race can
> not trigger but since lock is dropped later before you submit command, I
> have hard time convincing myself what exactly gurantees that vq is never
> switched before or even while command is submitted.
Because tgt->reqs will never become zero (which is a necessary condition
for tgt->req_vq to change), as long as one request is executing
virtscsi_queuecommand.
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
