Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
IronPort-SDR: ZjXpLpbHChALf6/z3zkvwEBqB24W2jj9wFFg3SsRS13cbYZr4hl6L59Gy3aPS33T4Md8GloHeQ
 Hi4wr+ni2NZS79v9U0glsCM0UP7M3pSewDfgqxsTVENliEyzaUuOs2iHQEH740caS/Jkh4F9ko
 a2EGmoLuLaqX+MTrV1jlsJE5m0ab3QCRdlgUPhRkrRRUjg4JHEgiyw2kSB/9YltIOosE5Olf/+
 pUxrBC9Pu661KtqpRQo/7dHC139LT2PFp7AgUwKCunaih0sO9V52IeFYOVYDqzwABwdwVxewTr
 kF5L2iDMOWXJOb1TDTKEDqCB
IronPort-SDR: 2GgwTNq92oXIEbcOwrfAPwPl8qYnP5Al2QyinBCTQ7Giz8shwFK1KpCWnvG0A2eCrXfW3pdnz9
 bP9FxR4ByB+5zKKUwWPiHnzcFpuPwXQ9xOG1fhbyEEkZ6gmGkFwKV3uOXCFZTYLHzL5ZhtZY8P
 Qq6mQbObZDvYZzgcemeWv1ScvOTlArs/a3IHmlPrZSWOE9yA1Jp5pLsa0aD7VtdDXy/sfuC7co
 q5Yu9OYTaSj+hEcfhHAS/jhx3fG3b4Z01UMp663XmEx1HDrG2i/wc/1uDqEErPIdW/XOeWmyib
 LiE=
WDCIronportException: Internal
Message-ID: <594ac0c9-a55b-bec7-77e3-a6c7e9525f6b@opensource.wdc.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Jun 2022 15:07:06 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.10.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] scsi: pm8001: Use non-atomic bitmap ops for tag alloc
 + free
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>, John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>,
        jinpu.wang@cloud.ionos.com, jejb@linux.ibm.com,
        martin.petersen@oracle.com
Cc:     linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ajish.Koshy@microchip.com
References: <1654879602-33497-1-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com>
 <1654879602-33497-4-git-send-email-john.garry@huawei.com>
 <303bbfad-edde-1197-679e-4a09175fb1f3@suse.de>
From:   Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>
Organization: Western Digital Research
In-Reply-To: <303bbfad-edde-1197-679e-4a09175fb1f3@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 6/20/22 15:00, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 6/10/22 18:46, John Garry wrote:
>> In pm8001_tag_alloc() we don't require atomic set_bit() as we are already
>> in atomic context. In pm8001_tag_free() we should use the same host
>> spinlock to protect clearing the tag (and then don't require the atomic
>> clear_bit()).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_sas.c | 10 +++++++---
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_sas.c b/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_sas.c
>> index 3a863d776724..8e3f2f9ddaac 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_sas.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/pm8001/pm8001_sas.c
>> @@ -66,7 +66,11 @@ static int pm8001_find_tag(struct sas_task *task, u32 *tag)
>>   void pm8001_tag_free(struct pm8001_hba_info *pm8001_ha, u32 tag)
>>   {
>>   	void *bitmap = pm8001_ha->tags;
>> -	clear_bit(tag, bitmap);
>> +	unsigned long flags;
>> +
>> +	spin_lock_irqsave(&pm8001_ha->bitmap_lock, flags);
>> +	__clear_bit(tag, bitmap);
>> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pm8001_ha->bitmap_lock, flags);
>>   }
>>   
> This spin lock is pretty much pointless; clear_bit() is always atomic.

But __clear_bit() is not atomic. I think it was the point of this patch,
to not use atomics and use the spinlock instead to protect bitmap.

Before the patch, pm8001_tag_alloc() takes the spinlock *and* use the
atomic set_bit(), which is an overkill. pm8001_tag_free() only clears the
bit using the the atomic clear_bit().

After the patch, spinlock guarantees atomicity for both alloc and free.

Not sure there is any gain from this.

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Hannes


-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research