Re: [PATCH 31/32] target: Don't release and re-acquire some spinlocks in loops
On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 15:59 -0800, Andy Grover wrote:
> Here are some instances where we're looping, but then dropping the
> spinlock around the loop in the loop, because we need to be able to
> sleep in the calls. Since everything is refcounted now, this should no
> longer be needed and we can just hold the locks the whole time.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Grover
> ---
> drivers/target/target_core_device.c |4
> drivers/target/target_core_tpg.c|5 -
> 2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
Ignoring, given the other NAKs.
--nab
> diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_device.c
> b/drivers/target/target_core_device.c
> index a432d7b..3896c99 100644
> --- a/drivers/target/target_core_device.c
> +++ b/drivers/target/target_core_device.c
> @@ -463,7 +463,6 @@ void core_clear_lun_from_tpg(struct se_lun *lun, struct
> se_portal_group *tpg)
>
> spin_lock_irq(&tpg->acl_node_lock);
> list_for_each_entry(nacl, &tpg->acl_node_list, acl_node) {
> - spin_unlock_irq(&tpg->acl_node_lock);
>
> spin_lock_irq(&nacl->device_list_lock);
> rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe(deve, _tmp,
> &nacl->rb_device_list, rb_node) {
> @@ -473,7 +472,6 @@ void core_clear_lun_from_tpg(struct se_lun *lun, struct
> se_portal_group *tpg)
> }
> spin_unlock_irq(&nacl->device_list_lock);
>
> - spin_lock_irq(&tpg->acl_node_lock);
> }
> spin_unlock_irq(&tpg->acl_node_lock);
> }
> @@ -1141,9 +1139,7 @@ int core_dev_add_lun(
> if (acl->dynamic_node_acl &&
> (!tpg->se_tpg_tfo->tpg_check_demo_mode_login_only ||
>
> !tpg->se_tpg_tfo->tpg_check_demo_mode_login_only(tpg))) {
> - spin_unlock_irq(&tpg->acl_node_lock);
> core_tpg_add_node_to_devs(acl, tpg);
> - spin_lock_irq(&tpg->acl_node_lock);
> }
> }
> spin_unlock_irq(&tpg->acl_node_lock);
> diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_tpg.c
> b/drivers/target/target_core_tpg.c
> index 30af019..1bcb665 100644
> --- a/drivers/target/target_core_tpg.c
> +++ b/drivers/target/target_core_tpg.c
> @@ -172,8 +172,6 @@ void core_tpg_add_node_to_devs(
> for (node = rb_first(&tpg->rb_tpg_lun_list); node; node =
> rb_next(node)) {
> struct se_lun *lun = rb_entry(node, struct se_lun, rb_node);
>
> - spin_unlock(&tpg->tpg_lun_lock);
> -
> dev = lun->lun_se_dev;
> /*
>* By default in LIO-Target $FABRIC_MOD,
> @@ -201,7 +199,6 @@ void core_tpg_add_node_to_devs(
>
> core_enable_device_list_for_node(lun, NULL, lun->unpacked_lun,
> lun_access, acl, tpg);
> - spin_lock(&tpg->tpg_lun_lock);
> }
> spin_unlock(&tpg->tpg_lun_lock);
> }
> @@ -299,9 +296,7 @@ void core_tpg_clear_object_luns(struct se_portal_group
> *tpg)
> if (!lun->lun_se_dev)
> continue;
>
> - spin_unlock(&tpg->tpg_lun_lock);
> core_dev_del_lun(tpg, lun);
> - spin_lock(&tpg->tpg_lun_lock);
> }
> spin_unlock(&tpg->tpg_lun_lock);
> }
--
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
[PATCH 31/32] target: Don't release and re-acquire some spinlocks in loops
Here are some instances where we're looping, but then dropping the
spinlock around the loop in the loop, because we need to be able to
sleep in the calls. Since everything is refcounted now, this should no
longer be needed and we can just hold the locks the whole time.
Signed-off-by: Andy Grover
---
drivers/target/target_core_device.c |4
drivers/target/target_core_tpg.c|5 -
2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_device.c
b/drivers/target/target_core_device.c
index a432d7b..3896c99 100644
--- a/drivers/target/target_core_device.c
+++ b/drivers/target/target_core_device.c
@@ -463,7 +463,6 @@ void core_clear_lun_from_tpg(struct se_lun *lun, struct
se_portal_group *tpg)
spin_lock_irq(&tpg->acl_node_lock);
list_for_each_entry(nacl, &tpg->acl_node_list, acl_node) {
- spin_unlock_irq(&tpg->acl_node_lock);
spin_lock_irq(&nacl->device_list_lock);
rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe(deve, _tmp,
&nacl->rb_device_list, rb_node) {
@@ -473,7 +472,6 @@ void core_clear_lun_from_tpg(struct se_lun *lun, struct
se_portal_group *tpg)
}
spin_unlock_irq(&nacl->device_list_lock);
- spin_lock_irq(&tpg->acl_node_lock);
}
spin_unlock_irq(&tpg->acl_node_lock);
}
@@ -1141,9 +1139,7 @@ int core_dev_add_lun(
if (acl->dynamic_node_acl &&
(!tpg->se_tpg_tfo->tpg_check_demo_mode_login_only ||
!tpg->se_tpg_tfo->tpg_check_demo_mode_login_only(tpg))) {
- spin_unlock_irq(&tpg->acl_node_lock);
core_tpg_add_node_to_devs(acl, tpg);
- spin_lock_irq(&tpg->acl_node_lock);
}
}
spin_unlock_irq(&tpg->acl_node_lock);
diff --git a/drivers/target/target_core_tpg.c b/drivers/target/target_core_tpg.c
index 30af019..1bcb665 100644
--- a/drivers/target/target_core_tpg.c
+++ b/drivers/target/target_core_tpg.c
@@ -172,8 +172,6 @@ void core_tpg_add_node_to_devs(
for (node = rb_first(&tpg->rb_tpg_lun_list); node; node =
rb_next(node)) {
struct se_lun *lun = rb_entry(node, struct se_lun, rb_node);
- spin_unlock(&tpg->tpg_lun_lock);
-
dev = lun->lun_se_dev;
/*
* By default in LIO-Target $FABRIC_MOD,
@@ -201,7 +199,6 @@ void core_tpg_add_node_to_devs(
core_enable_device_list_for_node(lun, NULL, lun->unpacked_lun,
lun_access, acl, tpg);
- spin_lock(&tpg->tpg_lun_lock);
}
spin_unlock(&tpg->tpg_lun_lock);
}
@@ -299,9 +296,7 @@ void core_tpg_clear_object_luns(struct se_portal_group *tpg)
if (!lun->lun_se_dev)
continue;
- spin_unlock(&tpg->tpg_lun_lock);
core_dev_del_lun(tpg, lun);
- spin_lock(&tpg->tpg_lun_lock);
}
spin_unlock(&tpg->tpg_lun_lock);
}
--
1.7.1
--
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
