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.
Signed-off-by: Jun Piao <[email protected]>
---
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);
/* check again since original check was outside of lock */
while (tag >= c->max_tag) {
row = (tag / P9_ROW_MAXTAG);
@@ -279,7 +278,7 @@ static struct p9_fcall *p9_fcall_alloc(int alloc_msize)
if (!c->reqs[row]) {
pr_err("Couldn't grow tag array\n");
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&c->lock, flags);
+ spin_unlock(&c->lock);
return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
}
for (col = 0; col < P9_ROW_MAXTAG; col++) {
@@ -288,7 +287,7 @@ static struct p9_fcall *p9_fcall_alloc(int alloc_msize)
}
c->max_tag += P9_ROW_MAXTAG;
}
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&c->lock, flags);
+ spin_unlock(&c->lock);
}
row = tag / P9_ROW_MAXTAG;
col = tag % P9_ROW_MAXTAG;
@@ -909,7 +908,6 @@ static struct p9_fid *p9_fid_create(struct p9_client *clnt)
{
int ret;
struct p9_fid *fid;
- unsigned long flags;
p9_debug(P9_DEBUG_FID, "clnt %p\n", clnt);
fid = kmalloc(sizeof(struct p9_fid), GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -928,9 +926,9 @@ static struct p9_fid *p9_fid_create(struct p9_client *clnt)
fid->uid = current_fsuid();
fid->clnt = clnt;
fid->rdir = NULL;
- spin_lock_irqsave(&clnt->lock, flags);
+ spin_lock(&clnt->lock);
list_add(&fid->flist, &clnt->fidlist);
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&clnt->lock, flags);
+ spin_unlock(&clnt->lock);
return fid;
@@ -942,14 +940,13 @@ static struct p9_fid *p9_fid_create(struct p9_client *clnt)
static void p9_fid_destroy(struct p9_fid *fid)
{
struct p9_client *clnt;
- unsigned long flags;
p9_debug(P9_DEBUG_FID, "fid %d\n", fid->fid);
clnt = fid->clnt;
p9_idpool_put(fid->fid, clnt->fidpool);
- spin_lock_irqsave(&clnt->lock, flags);
+ spin_lock(&clnt->lock);
list_del(&fid->flist);
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&clnt->lock, flags);
+ spin_unlock(&clnt->lock);
kfree(fid->rdir);
kfree(fid);
}
diff --git a/net/9p/trans_fd.c b/net/9p/trans_fd.c
index 588bf88..96e1e68 100644
--- a/net/9p/trans_fd.c
+++ b/net/9p/trans_fd.c
@@ -197,15 +197,14 @@ static void p9_mux_poll_stop(struct p9_conn *m)
static void p9_conn_cancel(struct p9_conn *m, int err)
{
struct p9_req_t *req, *rtmp;
- unsigned long flags;
LIST_HEAD(cancel_list);
p9_debug(P9_DEBUG_ERROR, "mux %p err %d\n", m, err);
- spin_lock_irqsave(&m->client->lock, flags);
+ spin_lock(&m->client->lock);
if (m->err) {
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&m->client->lock, flags);
+ spin_unlock(&m->client->lock);
return;
}
@@ -217,7 +216,7 @@ static void p9_conn_cancel(struct p9_conn *m, int err)
list_for_each_entry_safe(req, rtmp, &m->unsent_req_list, req_list) {
list_move(&req->req_list, &cancel_list);
}
- spin_unlock_irqrestore(&m->client->lock, flags);
+ spin_unlock(&m->client->lock);
list_for_each_entry_safe(req, rtmp, &cancel_list, req_list) {
p9_debug(P9_DEBUG_ERROR, "call back req %p\n", req);
--
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 <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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)
Please see my "Current 9P patches - test branch" for details:
https://sourceforge.net/p/v9fs/mailman/message/36365359/
--
Dominique Martinet
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 <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> 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/
>