From:   John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v4] blk-mq: fix tag_get wait task can't be awakened
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        QiuLaibin <qiulaibin@huawei.com>
CC:     <axboe@kernel.dk>, <ming.lei@redhat.com>,
        <martin.petersen@oracle.com>, <hare@suse.de>,
        <johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com>, <bvanassche@acm.org>,
        <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20220111140216.1858823-1-qiulaibin@huawei.com>
 <Yd2Q6LyJUDAU54Dt@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <d7f51067-f5a8-e78c-5ece-c1ef132b9b9a@huawei.com>
 <Yd7J4XbkdIm52bVw@smile.fi.intel.com>
Message-ID: <3d386998-d810-5036-a87e-50aba9f56639@huawei.com>
Date:   Wed, 12 Jan 2022 12:51:13 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.12.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <Yd7J4XbkdIm52bVw@smile.fi.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 12/01/2022 12:30, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>> +		if (test_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_HCTX_ACTIVE, &q->queue_flags) ||
>>>> +		    test_and_set_bit(QUEUE_FLAG_HCTX_ACTIVE, &q->queue_flags)) {
>>> Whoever wrote this code did too much defensive programming, because the first
>>> conditional doesn't make much sense here. Am I right?
>>>
>> I think because this judgement is in the general IO process, there are also
>> some performance considerations here.
> I didn't buy this. Is there any better argument why you need redundant
> test_bit() call?
> 

I think that the idea is that test_bit() is fast and test_and_set_bit() 
is slow; as such, if we generally expect the bit to be set, then there 
is no need to do the slower test_and_set_bit() always.