Re: [PATCH V3] block: Mitigate lock unbalance caused by lock switching

[Asias He]

On 05/29/2012 09:45 PM, Tim Gardner wrote:
> On 05/28/2012 07:39 PM, Asias He wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > @@ -440,6 +435,11 @@ void blk_cleanup_queue(struct request_queue *q)
> >   	del_timer_sync(&q->backing_dev_info.laptop_mode_wb_timer);
> >   	blk_sync_queue(q);
> >
> > +	spin_lock_irq(lock);
> > +	if (q->queue_lock !=&q->__queue_lock)
> > +		q->queue_lock =&q->__queue_lock;
> > +	spin_unlock_irq(lock);
> > +
>
> Isn't the 'if' clause superfluous ? You could just do the assignment, e.g.,
>
> +	spin_lock_irq(lock);
> +	q->queue_lock =&q->__queue_lock;
> +	spin_unlock_irq(lock);

Well, this saves a if clause but adds an unnecessary assignment if the 
lock is already internal lock.

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