lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH V3] block: Mitigate lock unbalance caused by lock switching
From
Hello,

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Asias He <asias@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Isn't the 'if' clause superfluous ? You could just do the assignment,
>> e.g.,
>>
>> +       spin_lock_irq(lock);
>> +       q->queue_lock =&q->__queue_lock;
>> +       spin_unlock_irq(lock);
>
>
> Well, this saves a if clause but adds an unnecessary assignment if the lock
> is already internal lock.

It's not hot path. Dirtying the cacheline there doesn't mean anything.
I don't really care either way but making optimization argument is
pretty silly here.

--
tejun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-05-30 09:01    [W:0.103 / U:2.696 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site