On 08/01/2013 03:39 PM, scame...@beardog.cce.hp.com wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 03:11:22PM +0200, Tomas Henzl wrote:
>> From: Tomas Henzl <the...@redhat.com>
>>
>> The cmd_pool_bits is protected everywhere with a spinlock, 
>> we don't need the test_and_set_bit, set_bit is enough and the loop
>> can be removed too.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tomas Henzl <the...@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/scsi/hpsa.c | 15 ++++++---------
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/hpsa.c b/drivers/scsi/hpsa.c
>> index 796482b..d7df01e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/hpsa.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/hpsa.c
>> @@ -2662,15 +2662,12 @@ static struct CommandList *cmd_alloc(struct 
>> ctlr_info *h)
>>      unsigned long flags;
>>  
>>      spin_lock_irqsave(&h->lock, flags);
>> -    do {
>> -            i = find_first_zero_bit(h->cmd_pool_bits, h->nr_cmds);
>> -            if (i == h->nr_cmds) {
>> -                    spin_unlock_irqrestore(&h->lock, flags);
>> -                    return NULL;
>> -            }
>> -    } while (test_and_set_bit
>> -             (i & (BITS_PER_LONG - 1),
>> -              h->cmd_pool_bits + (i / BITS_PER_LONG)) != 0);
>> +    i = find_first_zero_bit(h->cmd_pool_bits, h->nr_cmds);
>> +    if (i == h->nr_cmds) {
>> +            spin_unlock_irqrestore(&h->lock, flags);
>> +            return NULL;
>> +    }
>> +    set_bit(i & (BITS_PER_LONG - 1), h->cmd_pool_bits + (i / 
>> BITS_PER_LONG));
>>      h->nr_allocs++;
>>      spin_unlock_irqrestore(&h->lock, flags);
>>  
>> -- 
>> 1.8.3.1
>>
> Would it be better instead to just not use the spinlock for protecting
> cmd_pool_bits?  I have thought about doing this for awhile, but haven't
> gotten around to it.
>
> I think the while loop is safe without the spin lock.  And then it is
> not needed in cmd_free either.

I was evaluating the same idea for a while too, a loop and inside just the 
test_and_set_bit,
maybe even a stored value to start with a likely empty bit from last time to 
tune it a bit.
But I know almost nothing about the use pattern, so I decided for the least 
invasive change
to the existing code, to not make it worse.


>
> -- steve
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to