Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:50:36 +0530 | From | "Romit Dasgupta" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Moving spinlock to struct usb_hcd |
| |
Hi, Should I go ahead and submit the patch with the usual "signed-off" thingie? Or is it totally useless patch that is going to be ignored?
Thanks, -Romit
On Jan 26, 2008 9:06 PM, Romit Dasgupta <romlinux@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Looking at how this lock is used, contention doesn't look likely > > to be an issue. It's never held for long ... > yes in the general case but in usb_hcd_flush_endpoint routine it seems > to be held for longer than other routines. I agree that > usb_hcd_flush_endpoint is an infrequently called routine. Normal > systems dont have too many HCs. My computer shows 1 EHCI and 3 OHCIs > so I guess when I connect high speed devices there are less chances of > contention. With more HC this lock might be contended for. > Nevertheless, the right place for the lock seems to be inside usb_hcd. > What do you think? > > > > > > > Do you have any proof that contention is an actual problem? > > Because otherwise I see no benefit to such a change. > > > > I will try to see what I can find with /proc/lock_stat. > > Thanks, > -Romit >
| |