Noticed that we can shuffle the code around in fcoe_percpu_receive_thread a bit
and avoid taking the fcoe_rx_list lock twice per iteration. This should improve
throughput somewhat. With this change we take the lock, and check for new
frames in a single critical section. Only if the list is empty do we drop the
lock and re-acquire it after being signaled to wake up.
Signed-off-by: Neil Horman <nhor...@tuxdriver.com>
CC: Robert Love <robert.w.l...@intel.com>
---
drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c | 18 ++++++++++--------
1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c
index 0b48c7d..082951f 100644
--- a/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c
+++ b/drivers/scsi/fcoe/fcoe.c
@@ -1820,19 +1820,21 @@ static int fcoe_percpu_receive_thread(void *arg)
spin_lock_bh(&p->fcoe_rx_list.lock);
skb_queue_splice_init(&p->fcoe_rx_list, &tmp);
- spin_unlock_bh(&p->fcoe_rx_list.lock);
-
- while ((skb = __skb_dequeue(&tmp)) != NULL)
- fcoe_recv_frame(skb);
- spin_lock_bh(&p->fcoe_rx_list.lock);
- if (!skb_queue_len(&p->fcoe_rx_list)) {
+ while (!skb_queue_len(&tmp) && !kthread_should_stop()) {
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
spin_unlock_bh(&p->fcoe_rx_list.lock);
schedule();
set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
- } else
- spin_unlock_bh(&p->fcoe_rx_list.lock);
+ spin_lock_bh(&p->fcoe_rx_list.lock);
+ skb_queue_splice_init(&p->fcoe_rx_list, &tmp);
+ }
+
+ spin_unlock_bh(&p->fcoe_rx_list.lock);
+
+ while ((skb = __skb_dequeue(&tmp)) != NULL)
+ fcoe_recv_frame(skb);
+
}
return 0;
}
--
1.7.7.6
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@open-fcoe.org
https://lists.open-fcoe.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
