On Fri, Mar 06 2009, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Mar 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 06 2009, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Fri, 6 Mar 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 05 2009, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > > But then I noticed ps3vram_make_request() may be called concurrently,
> > > > > so I had to add a mutex to avoid data corruption. This slows the
> > > > > driver down, and in the end, the version with a thread turns out to be
> > > > > ca. 1% faster. The version without a thread is about 50 lines less
> > > > > code, though.
> > > >
> > > > That is correct, ->make_request_fn may get reentered. I'm not surprised
> > > > that performance dropped if you just shoved everything under a mutex.
> > > > You could be a little more smart and queue concurrent bio's for
> > > > processing when the current one is complete though, there are several
> > > > approaches there that be a lot faster than going all the way through the
> > > > IO stack and scheduler just to avoid concurrency.
> > >
> > > Yes, using a spinlock and queueing requests on a list if the driver is
> > > busy can be done after 2.6.29...
> >
> > Certainly. Even just replacing your current mutex with a spinlock during
> > the memcpy() would surely be a lot faster. Or even just grabbing the
> > mutex before calling into the write for the duration of the bio. The way
> > you do it is certain context switch death :-)
>
> It's not just the memcpy(). ps3vram_{up,down}load() call msleep(), so
> I cannot use a spinlock.
Ah right, I hadn't looked close enough. But putting the mutex_lock()
outside of the bio_for_each_segment() is going to be much faster than
getting/releasing it for each segment.
--
Jens Axboe
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
