Hi,
For completing any block request, MMC block driver is calling:
spin_lock_irq(queue-lock)
__blk_end_request()
spin_unlock_irq(queue-lock)
But if we analyze the sources of latency in kernel using ftrace,
__blk_end_request() function seems to hold a spinlock with interrupts disabled
for up to 6.5 ms sometimes. __blk_end_request() calls couple of functions and
ftrace output shows that blk_update_bidi_request() function is almost taking
6ms. So I was wondering why can't we use the blk_end_request() rather than
__blk_end_request(). Both function does the same thing except blk_end_request()
doesn't take up the spinlock while calling the blk_update_bidi_request(). Is
there any race condition which could occur if we call blk_update_bidi_request()
without queue lock?
I looked into blk_update_bidi_request() function and it mainly updates bio's of
a request and doesn't look to do any manipulation with request queue structure
of block device. There are many block drivers (SCSI, IDE etc .) other than MMC
uses blk_end_request() rather than __blk_end_request(). Was there any special
reason we are using __blk_end_request() in MMC block driver? If there is no
specific reason, I would like to post a patch which would make MMC driver to
use blk_end_request().
Let me know your thoughts on this.
Regards,
Subhash
--
Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
