Message-ID: <553927A6.2050407@kernel.dk>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:11:02 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
CC: Mike Miller <mike.miller@hp.com>, Don Brace <don.brace@pmcs.com>,
        iss_storagedev@hp.com, storagedev@pmcs.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cciss: Optimize scan_thread
References: <1429728220.10273.26.camel@stgolabs.net>	 <5539232F.4050404@kernel.dk> <1429808789.10273.37.camel@stgolabs.net>
In-Reply-To: <1429808789.10273.37.camel@stgolabs.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1044
Lines: 25

On 04/23/2015 11:06 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 10:51 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Not that it's wrong, but this is mostly some unneeded optimizations.
>> It's not like this is in a hot path.
>
> Most definitely small optimizations, I just happened to run into
> auditing schedule calls. Still no harm in applying.

Are you sure? What happens if scan_thread() races with pci removal? The 
list was non-empty, enter the loop. PCI removal removes the device from 
the scan list. Now we grab the lock in scan_thread(), and 
unconditionally attempt to remove an entry from scan_q. Maybe something 
protects us from this, maybe it doesn't.

So IOW, I don't like your lock optimization, it's a bad idea. The 
__set_current_state() change is definitely fine, though.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/