Hi Dominique,
On 2018/7/12 15:01, Dominique Martinet wrote:
> piaojun wrote on Thu, Jul 12, 2018:
>> In p9_read_work(), we use spin_lock for client->lock, but misuse
>> spin_lock_irqsave for it in p9_fid_create(). As p9_client lock won't be
>> locked in irq context, so spin_lock is enough. And that will improve the
>> performance.
>
> Agreed on principle, see remark below
>
>> Signed-off-by: Jun Piao <piao...@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> net/9p/client.c | 17 +++++++----------
>> net/9p/trans_fd.c | 7 +++----
>> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/net/9p/client.c b/net/9p/client.c
>> index 8bc8b3e..b05cbfc 100644
>> --- a/net/9p/client.c
>> +++ b/net/9p/client.c
>> @@ -260,7 +260,6 @@ static struct p9_fcall *p9_fcall_alloc(int alloc_msize)
>> static struct p9_req_t *
>> p9_tag_alloc(struct p9_client *c, u16 tag, unsigned int max_size)
>> {
>> - unsigned long flags;
>> int row, col;
>> struct p9_req_t *req;
>> int alloc_msize = min(c->msize, max_size);
>> @@ -270,7 +269,7 @@ static struct p9_fcall *p9_fcall_alloc(int alloc_msize)
>> tag++;
>>
>> if (tag >= c->max_tag) {
>> - spin_lock_irqsave(&c->lock, flags);
>> + spin_lock(&c->lock);
>
> This code doesn't exist anymore with Matthew's idr rework, could you
> submit that patch based on top of my 9p-next branch?
> (unless you really want Andrew to take this for the next 4.18-rc, but
> I'm not convinced this qualifies)
OK, I will rebase my patch and resend later.
Thanks,
Jun
>
> Please see my "Current 9P patches - test branch" for details:
> https://sourceforge.net/p/v9fs/mailman/message/36365359/
>
